March 4, 2013
By Tom Blumer
(NewsBusters) - Did you ever mean to say "If you are shy then I have an acre of land in the Everglades." and have it come out "If you're bashful I got a snake sitting under my desk here"? I mean, those sentences are so close to being identical, and these kinds of misstatements happen all the time, right?
Well, that's what you have to believe if you're still a defender of Connecticut legislator Ernest Hewett, who said the latter on February 20 to a 17 year-old girl at a public hearing and is now saying he meant to say the former. Most press covereage of Hewett's obviously lewd remark has done an acceptable job of tagging him as a Democrat, with a notable exception being Ken Dixon at the Connecticut Post (HT Hot Air via Instapundit; bolds are mine throughout this post):
A veteran House member from New London was stripped of his deputy speaker title this week after he made a lewd comment during a budget hearing.
Speaker of the House J. Brendan Sharkey said Thursday that Rep. Ernest Hewett made a remark perceived as sexually harassing during an exchange with a 17-year-old intern from the Connecticut Science Center.
After the teenage girl said that working at the science center helped her overcome a fear of snakes, Hewett allegedly made reference to a snake with him, under his desk top.
"The public needs to know this is an environment where they will be respected," Sharkey said. "That kind of language shouldn't be used in any public setting."
After hearing an audiotape of the incident, which occurred Feb. 21, Sharkey stripped Hewett of his deputy speaker title Wednesday. With the removal of the title goes $6,446 in extra pay above the rank-and-file rate of $28,000.
"After I first heard about it, I thought maybe in the broader sense maybe he was misunderstood and it may not be that big a deal," Sharkey said in an interview.
"But based on the audio, it's hard to interpret it that way. It's hard for anyone who heard the audio or was there to think it was anything other than a sexual innuendo.
"I guess the best word I can use to describe this is disturbing," Sharkey said.
Sharkey last week ordered sexual harassment training for all House Democrats who are not in their first or second term. In addition, he has invited women members of the 99-member majority caucus to meet with him and Hewett on Tuesday.
So readers can at best infer that Hewett is a Democrat if they endure to Paragraph 8.
Another note to the Post's Ken Dixon: It's not "alleged" if it can be heard on audio and no one is denying what was said.
But someone is still defending Hewett, namely Edward Moukawsher, a state representative for Groton and Ledyard, also not identified as a Democrat by the New London Day, which published his letter to the editor:
Moukawsher defends Hewett's comment
The treatment of Rep. Ernest Hewett for his remark to a 17-year-old woman who testified before the Appropriations Committee is completely unfair to him and defies common sense. In her testimony she said she was a shy person who overcame her shyness and fear of snakes. The chair of the committee complimented her on her testimony that belied her expressed shyness. Rep. Hewett followed the chair's remarks, and said "If you're bashful, I got a snake sitting under my desk here." It is absurd to think he was saying anything other than that she had overcome her shyness so well that her bashfulness was as nonexistent as a live snake under his desk.
Rep. Hewett turned on his microphone to speak on the record in a public meeting. This was not an offhand, surreptitious comment but a compliment to a witness following a compliment by the committee chair.
Moukawsher would appear to have a bright future as a stand-up comedian. One-liners like those just bolded would have audiences rolling in the aisles.
Meanwhile, Hewett can't seem to keep his story straight, telling the Day on Friday that "If she had said elephants, I would have said elephants." As noted earlier, he said he originally meant to say "acre of land" instead of "snake."
This is not a national story at the Associated Press, and has barely garnered any attenting in the establishment press.
If a Republican legislator anywhere had made such a boorish remark -- oh, you know the rest.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Nursing Home CPR Case: Glenwood Gardens Defends Nurse Who Refused To Help Ailing Patient
March 4, 2013
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- A central California retirement home is defending one of its nurses who refused pleas by a 911 operator to perform CPR on an elderly woman, who later died.
"Is there anybody that's willing to help this lady and not let her die," dispatcher Tracey Halvorson says on a 911 tape released by the Bakersfield Fire Department aired by several media outlets on Sunday.
"Not at this time," said the nurse, who didn't give her full name and said facility policy prevented her from giving the woman medical help.
At the beginning of the Tuesday morning call, the nurse asked for paramedics to come and help the woman who had collapsed in the home's dining room and was barely breathing.
Halvorson pleads for the nurse to perform CPR, and after several refusals she starts pleading for her to find a resident, or a gardener, or anyone not employed by the home to get on the phone, take her instructions and help the woman.
"Can we flag someone down in the street and get them to help this lady?" Halvorson says on the call. "Can we flag a stranger down? I bet a stranger would help her."
The 87-year-old was later declared dead at Mercy Southwest Hospital, officials said.
The executive director of Glenwood Gardens, Jeffrey Toomer, defended the nurse's actions in a statement, saying she did indeed follow policy.
"In the event of a health emergency at this independent living community our practice is to immediately call emergency medical personnel for assistance and to wait with the individual needing attention until such personnel arrives," Toomer said in a written statement. "That is the protocol we followed."
Toomer offered condolences to the woman's family and said a "thorough internal review" of the incident would be conducted.
He told KGET-TV that residents of the home's independent living community are informed of the policy and agree to it when they move in. He said the policy does not apply at the adjacent assisted living and skilled nursing facilities.
A call to the facility by The Associated Press seeking more information on the incident was not immediately returned.
huffpost
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- A central California retirement home is defending one of its nurses who refused pleas by a 911 operator to perform CPR on an elderly woman, who later died.
"Is there anybody that's willing to help this lady and not let her die," dispatcher Tracey Halvorson says on a 911 tape released by the Bakersfield Fire Department aired by several media outlets on Sunday.
"Not at this time," said the nurse, who didn't give her full name and said facility policy prevented her from giving the woman medical help.
At the beginning of the Tuesday morning call, the nurse asked for paramedics to come and help the woman who had collapsed in the home's dining room and was barely breathing.
Halvorson pleads for the nurse to perform CPR, and after several refusals she starts pleading for her to find a resident, or a gardener, or anyone not employed by the home to get on the phone, take her instructions and help the woman.
"Can we flag someone down in the street and get them to help this lady?" Halvorson says on the call. "Can we flag a stranger down? I bet a stranger would help her."
The 87-year-old was later declared dead at Mercy Southwest Hospital, officials said.
The executive director of Glenwood Gardens, Jeffrey Toomer, defended the nurse's actions in a statement, saying she did indeed follow policy.
"In the event of a health emergency at this independent living community our practice is to immediately call emergency medical personnel for assistance and to wait with the individual needing attention until such personnel arrives," Toomer said in a written statement. "That is the protocol we followed."
Toomer offered condolences to the woman's family and said a "thorough internal review" of the incident would be conducted.
He told KGET-TV that residents of the home's independent living community are informed of the policy and agree to it when they move in. He said the policy does not apply at the adjacent assisted living and skilled nursing facilities.
A call to the facility by The Associated Press seeking more information on the incident was not immediately returned.
huffpost
Record 259 nominees for 2013 Nobel Peace Prize or What Prize did You Find in the Bottom of your Cracker Jack Box?
March 4, 2013
AFP - A record 259 nominees are in the running for this year's Nobel Peace Prize -- 209 individuals and 50 organisations -- with the laureate to be announced in October, the Nobel Institute said on Monday.
The list is known to include Malala Yousafzai, the shot Pakistani schoolgirl-turned-icon of Taliban resistance, ex-Eastern bloc activists, and former US president Bill Clinton.
"The trend is upward, not every year but almost," the head of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, said.
"This reflects a growing interest for the prize. The nominations come from the entire world," he said.
The previous record dates back to 2011 when 241 candidates were nominated.
The list of nominees is kept secret for 50 years.
But thousands of people are eligible to nominate candidates -- including former laureates, members of parliament and government around the world, some university professors, and members of certain international organisations -- and they can reveal the names they have put forward.
As a result, it is known that Malala and Clinton are nominated, as well as Russian human rights organisation Memorial and Myanmar's reformist President Thein Sein.
The deadline to submit nominations closed on February 1.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee will announce its choice in early October, and the prize will be awarded, as tradition dictates, on December 10, the anniversary of the death in 1896 of the Nobel Prizes' founder, philanthropist Alfred Nobel.
Last year, the prestigious honour went to the European Union, a highly controversial choice as the bloc struggles through its worst crisis since its creation.
"There's no doubt that the choice of laureates in recent years has contributed to the increasing attention" on the award, Lundestad acknowledged.
In 2009, the prize also made waves when US President Barack Obama received the nod just months after he took office and as the US was fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 |
| An image obtained from University Hospitals Birmingham on February 4, 2013 shows Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai -- who was shot in the head by the Taliban for campaigning for girls' education -- following a recent operation. Malala is among a record 259 nominees for this year's Nobel Peace Prize -- 209 individuals and 50 organisations -- according to the Nobel Institute. |
The list is known to include Malala Yousafzai, the shot Pakistani schoolgirl-turned-icon of Taliban resistance, ex-Eastern bloc activists, and former US president Bill Clinton.
"The trend is upward, not every year but almost," the head of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, said.
"This reflects a growing interest for the prize. The nominations come from the entire world," he said.
The previous record dates back to 2011 when 241 candidates were nominated.
The list of nominees is kept secret for 50 years.
But thousands of people are eligible to nominate candidates -- including former laureates, members of parliament and government around the world, some university professors, and members of certain international organisations -- and they can reveal the names they have put forward.
As a result, it is known that Malala and Clinton are nominated, as well as Russian human rights organisation Memorial and Myanmar's reformist President Thein Sein.
The deadline to submit nominations closed on February 1.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee will announce its choice in early October, and the prize will be awarded, as tradition dictates, on December 10, the anniversary of the death in 1896 of the Nobel Prizes' founder, philanthropist Alfred Nobel.
Last year, the prestigious honour went to the European Union, a highly controversial choice as the bloc struggles through its worst crisis since its creation.
"There's no doubt that the choice of laureates in recent years has contributed to the increasing attention" on the award, Lundestad acknowledged.
In 2009, the prize also made waves when US President Barack Obama received the nod just months after he took office and as the US was fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The slow slide toward state run media
March 5, 2013
by Jazz Shaw
(Hot Air) - In the aftermath of the increasing strange story about Bob Woodward being threatened by the White House, there seem to be a few competing entries in the, “what does it all mean” sweepstakes. There is clearly some debate over precisely how much of a “threat” it really was or was intended to be, but does that mean that it was a big nothingburger? Matt Lewis seems to be leaning that way, opining that we’ve all been played.
Sperling’s email eventually does say, “I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.” But this is clearly not a veiled threat of retaliation, but rather a warning that the reporter was about to get the story wrong.
When Woodward tells of being warned he would “regret” challenging Obama, it sounds ominous. But if Politico’s reporting today is correct, it seems much more innocuous than that.
Looks like we were played.
Matt makes a couple of points which I won’t argue with. Woodward, even in this late stage of his career, is still in the business of selling books. And controversy is good for sales. This isn’t to say he lit this particular fire intentionally to gin up some action, but it’s also not terribly difficult to imagine how he wouldn’t rush to douse the flames, either. And the relationship between the author and Sperling may indeed be a cordial, long standing one, leading the aide to feel comfortable tossing around some phrases he might have chosen more carefully in a public forum.
But does that mean this should all be tosses aside? Kathleen Parker has a different take on the subject this weekend, with a look through a longer lens at some trends in how the White House manages the lines of communications.
Understandably, everyday Americans may find this discussion too inside baseball to pay much mind. Why can’t the president play a little golf without a press gaggle watching? As for Woodward, it’s not as though the White House was threatening to bust his kneecaps.
Add to these likely sentiments the fact that Americans increasingly dislike the so-called mainstream media, sometimes for good reason. Distrust of media, encouraged by alternative media seeking to enhance their own standing, has become a tool useful to the very powers the Fourth Estate was constitutionally endowed to monitor. When the president can bypass reporters to reach the public, it is not far-fetched to imagine a time — perhaps now? — when the state controls the message.
Her method of bringing blogging and other new media outlets into the mix is what makes this more of a valid discussion. The government is supposed to face the media as an opponent of sorts, trying to keep secrets while the media tries to expose them. When the media fell from grace and became distrusted by the public to do this important job, bloggers and other non-establishment entities stepped in to watch the watchers so to speak. But we need to remember that there are still key differences between social media and the mainstream.
Bloggers – at least the lion’s share of them – don’t have any direct access to the White House. (And the few exceptions who do are so far in the pockets of the administration that it’s not worth mentioning.) So they still rely on the mainstream White House press corps for all of the inside data. And rather than having the tools to challenge the administration directly, blogging quickly devolved into competing camps who almost exclusively challenged the media on the other side of the fence rather than scoring any points for transparency in government. Conservative bloggers take on MSBNC, liberals take on Fox. Does this somehow damage White House control of the message? Parker gets this part right.
This is no tempest in a teapot but rather the leak in the dike. Drip by drip, the Obama administration has demonstrated its intolerance for dissent and its contempt for any who stray from the White House script. Yes, all administrations are sensitive to criticism, and all push back when such criticism is deemed unfair or inaccurate. But no president since Richard Nixon has demonstrated such overt contempt for the messenger. And, thanks to technological advances in social media, Obama has been able to bypass traditional watchdogs as no other president has.
I still don’t know why it’s important that reporters get to watch Barack Obama play golf with Tiger Woods. And Bob Woodward is still able to write anything he wants. But if that’s the standard we set, how much else goes on that we’re actually missing? And how much spin gets passed off as news? In the end, the Woodward story was about a lot more than just Bob selling a few more books. It serves as a reminder that state influence over the media remains a danger, just as the Founders knew it could be when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
by Jazz Shaw
(Hot Air) - In the aftermath of the increasing strange story about Bob Woodward being threatened by the White House, there seem to be a few competing entries in the, “what does it all mean” sweepstakes. There is clearly some debate over precisely how much of a “threat” it really was or was intended to be, but does that mean that it was a big nothingburger? Matt Lewis seems to be leaning that way, opining that we’ve all been played.
Sperling’s email eventually does say, “I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.” But this is clearly not a veiled threat of retaliation, but rather a warning that the reporter was about to get the story wrong.
When Woodward tells of being warned he would “regret” challenging Obama, it sounds ominous. But if Politico’s reporting today is correct, it seems much more innocuous than that.
Looks like we were played.
Matt makes a couple of points which I won’t argue with. Woodward, even in this late stage of his career, is still in the business of selling books. And controversy is good for sales. This isn’t to say he lit this particular fire intentionally to gin up some action, but it’s also not terribly difficult to imagine how he wouldn’t rush to douse the flames, either. And the relationship between the author and Sperling may indeed be a cordial, long standing one, leading the aide to feel comfortable tossing around some phrases he might have chosen more carefully in a public forum.
But does that mean this should all be tosses aside? Kathleen Parker has a different take on the subject this weekend, with a look through a longer lens at some trends in how the White House manages the lines of communications.
Understandably, everyday Americans may find this discussion too inside baseball to pay much mind. Why can’t the president play a little golf without a press gaggle watching? As for Woodward, it’s not as though the White House was threatening to bust his kneecaps.
Add to these likely sentiments the fact that Americans increasingly dislike the so-called mainstream media, sometimes for good reason. Distrust of media, encouraged by alternative media seeking to enhance their own standing, has become a tool useful to the very powers the Fourth Estate was constitutionally endowed to monitor. When the president can bypass reporters to reach the public, it is not far-fetched to imagine a time — perhaps now? — when the state controls the message.
Her method of bringing blogging and other new media outlets into the mix is what makes this more of a valid discussion. The government is supposed to face the media as an opponent of sorts, trying to keep secrets while the media tries to expose them. When the media fell from grace and became distrusted by the public to do this important job, bloggers and other non-establishment entities stepped in to watch the watchers so to speak. But we need to remember that there are still key differences between social media and the mainstream.
Bloggers – at least the lion’s share of them – don’t have any direct access to the White House. (And the few exceptions who do are so far in the pockets of the administration that it’s not worth mentioning.) So they still rely on the mainstream White House press corps for all of the inside data. And rather than having the tools to challenge the administration directly, blogging quickly devolved into competing camps who almost exclusively challenged the media on the other side of the fence rather than scoring any points for transparency in government. Conservative bloggers take on MSBNC, liberals take on Fox. Does this somehow damage White House control of the message? Parker gets this part right.
This is no tempest in a teapot but rather the leak in the dike. Drip by drip, the Obama administration has demonstrated its intolerance for dissent and its contempt for any who stray from the White House script. Yes, all administrations are sensitive to criticism, and all push back when such criticism is deemed unfair or inaccurate. But no president since Richard Nixon has demonstrated such overt contempt for the messenger. And, thanks to technological advances in social media, Obama has been able to bypass traditional watchdogs as no other president has.
I still don’t know why it’s important that reporters get to watch Barack Obama play golf with Tiger Woods. And Bob Woodward is still able to write anything he wants. But if that’s the standard we set, how much else goes on that we’re actually missing? And how much spin gets passed off as news? In the end, the Woodward story was about a lot more than just Bob selling a few more books. It serves as a reminder that state influence over the media remains a danger, just as the Founders knew it could be when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Jeff Sessions for President
March 5, 2013
We found a leader, but hardly anybody noticed. Never mind Rubio and Ryan, or people named Bush. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is the best we’ve got, and he’s plenty good. In fact, his words on the Senate floor when he implored his colleagues to reject the nomination of Jack Lew for Treasury secretary are as good as it gets. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard anything as elegant, compelling, honorable, and philosophically coherent as Sessions’ speech on the 27th of February.
You probably missed it, what with all the excitement of the epic gladiatorial combat between Bob Woodward and the White House, and the Hagel confirmation carnival, and the Rodman diplomatic mission to Pyongyang.
Sessions laid out Lew’s incredible record of catastrophic budget proposals, which, as Sessions noted, had been unanimously rejected by Congress and decimated in scholarly and editorial analyses. But all that, terrible though it was, and quite sufficient to disqualify anyone from running Treasury, was in a way the least of it. The worst was Lew’s nonchalance in lying to the Senate.
I have discussed his repeated, knowing, and deliberately false statements about those budget plans—most notoriously his claim that “Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore; we’re spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt.”
All false, knowingly and deliberately false. Sessions refused to sit for it. He moved into more philosophical territory, urging the rejection of Lew not only because the man himself is unworthy of the office, but to “defend the integrity of the Senate, to defend the right of our constituents to hear the truth from government officials, and to defend the idea, the very concept, of truth itself.”
Because if you vote for Lew, you’re refusing to stand up for the truth, not just about this one nomination, but about what’s happening to America. About what President Obama is doing to us. Sessions put it so clearly that even the proverbial blind man could see it: whereas the president has repeatedly said that he had a plan to “pay down our debt,” he doesn’t. It’s totally false. The proof? “This is the 1,400th day since Senate Democrats passed a budget.”
If Obama and the Democrats had a plan, we’d have seen it. They don’t have one. Why not? Sessions: “Because they decided it would be better to offer no solution, no plan to help struggling Americans, and instead to tear down anyone who dared to offer a plan to solve our nation’s economic problems.”
The president and his followers have no interest in solving our problems; their interest is in annihilating the opposition. Sessions: “attack anyone who dares to reduce the size of the bureaucracy. Attack anyone who suggests Washington is too powerful. Attack, attack, attack—while never offering anything to help Americans who are struggling every day.”
Because they are building a vast, intrusive state that they hope will solidify their power for generations to come. Jack Lew is an avatar of that frightful mission, and Sessions implored his colleagues to reject both the nominee and the mission.
To no avail, as you know, and as Sessions knew. But he refused to shut up, and we’ll hear a lot more from him. He’s got the right words and the right music. He speaks sadly, not in a phony rage. He’s the real deal. Ask those who go to Bethesda Naval Hospital, and they’ll tell you that Jeff Sessions has regularly gone into the wards where our wounded warriors are being treated. Which is further evidence of his understanding of the proper mission of an American leader.
You don’t get razzle-dazzle, and he talks slowly. But listen to him. He’s the best we’ve got.
PJMedia
We found a leader, but hardly anybody noticed. Never mind Rubio and Ryan, or people named Bush. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is the best we’ve got, and he’s plenty good. In fact, his words on the Senate floor when he implored his colleagues to reject the nomination of Jack Lew for Treasury secretary are as good as it gets. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard anything as elegant, compelling, honorable, and philosophically coherent as Sessions’ speech on the 27th of February.
You probably missed it, what with all the excitement of the epic gladiatorial combat between Bob Woodward and the White House, and the Hagel confirmation carnival, and the Rodman diplomatic mission to Pyongyang.
Sessions laid out Lew’s incredible record of catastrophic budget proposals, which, as Sessions noted, had been unanimously rejected by Congress and decimated in scholarly and editorial analyses. But all that, terrible though it was, and quite sufficient to disqualify anyone from running Treasury, was in a way the least of it. The worst was Lew’s nonchalance in lying to the Senate.
I have discussed his repeated, knowing, and deliberately false statements about those budget plans—most notoriously his claim that “Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore; we’re spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt.”
All false, knowingly and deliberately false. Sessions refused to sit for it. He moved into more philosophical territory, urging the rejection of Lew not only because the man himself is unworthy of the office, but to “defend the integrity of the Senate, to defend the right of our constituents to hear the truth from government officials, and to defend the idea, the very concept, of truth itself.”
Because if you vote for Lew, you’re refusing to stand up for the truth, not just about this one nomination, but about what’s happening to America. About what President Obama is doing to us. Sessions put it so clearly that even the proverbial blind man could see it: whereas the president has repeatedly said that he had a plan to “pay down our debt,” he doesn’t. It’s totally false. The proof? “This is the 1,400th day since Senate Democrats passed a budget.”
If Obama and the Democrats had a plan, we’d have seen it. They don’t have one. Why not? Sessions: “Because they decided it would be better to offer no solution, no plan to help struggling Americans, and instead to tear down anyone who dared to offer a plan to solve our nation’s economic problems.”
The president and his followers have no interest in solving our problems; their interest is in annihilating the opposition. Sessions: “attack anyone who dares to reduce the size of the bureaucracy. Attack anyone who suggests Washington is too powerful. Attack, attack, attack—while never offering anything to help Americans who are struggling every day.”
Because they are building a vast, intrusive state that they hope will solidify their power for generations to come. Jack Lew is an avatar of that frightful mission, and Sessions implored his colleagues to reject both the nominee and the mission.
To no avail, as you know, and as Sessions knew. But he refused to shut up, and we’ll hear a lot more from him. He’s got the right words and the right music. He speaks sadly, not in a phony rage. He’s the real deal. Ask those who go to Bethesda Naval Hospital, and they’ll tell you that Jeff Sessions has regularly gone into the wards where our wounded warriors are being treated. Which is further evidence of his understanding of the proper mission of an American leader.
You don’t get razzle-dazzle, and he talks slowly. But listen to him. He’s the best we’ve got.
PJMedia
Supreme Court: Another Chance to Kill Obamacare
March 5, 2013
By Matt Barber
“Unconstitutional? Absolutely. It’s like dropping a Ford Pinto engine into a totaled Ferrari body, patching it up and then selling it to some unsuspecting dupe as a “brand new Ferrari.”
“But Republican governors are folding like cheap lawn chairs,” you say. “And political eunuchs in the GOP establishment are bowing to Obama like he bows to foreign dictators. Any hope of repeal is long dead, and besides, Chief Justice John Roberts put the final nail in the judicial coffin last summer, didn’t he? Any chance of killing the Obamacare zombie is gone, right?”
Wrong.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media paid it little attention, but back in November the U.S. Supreme Court shocked many in the legal community by granting Liberty Counsel’s motion for a rehearing on its multi-pronged challenge to Obamacare. The high court ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments. This is extremely rare and means, almost certainly, that Chief Justice Roberts will get another bite at the rotten apple – this time, with a whole new quiver of legal arrows.
Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Liberty Counsel recently filed its brief in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner. The Christian civil rights firm represents Liberty University and two private individuals in this case. While there are other legal challenges to the employer contraceptive/abortifacient mandate, Liberty Counsel’s is the most comprehensive case pending in the country.
The lawsuit challenges 1) the employer mandate for all employers; 2) the abortion mandate for religious employers; 3) the abortion mandate for individuals; and 4) the entire law because tax bills must originate in the House and Obamacare originated in the Senate.
This case is the only one in the country that challenges the entire employer mandate for all employers. Like other pending cases, Liberty Counsel’s also challenges the so-called “Preventative coverage” mandate, which requires employers to provide free contraceptives, sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and IUDs, of which the latter two cause abortion.
Additionally, Obamacare compels individual citizens to violate their conscience by making them directly fund abortion homicide – both surgical and chemical – under penalty of law. It forces all employees who are part of a plan that offers abortion coverage to pay $1 per month directly to a “free” abortion fund. There is no opt-out provision, and information relative to which plans offer abortion is intentionally covered-up. This too is part of the case, so don’t let anyone tell you that Obamacare doesn’t require you to fund abortion on demand. If they do, they’re simply lying through their triple-grande-four-pump-hazelnut-mocha-stained teeth.
Finally, Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that Obamacare is invalid because, since it’s a tax – as the Supreme Court already ruled in June – it violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause. To pass constitutional muster, tax bills must originate in the House, not the Senate.
Before the Democrat-led Senate rammed it through in the dead of night, Christmas Eve 2009 – Senate President Harry Reid used a House bill unrelated to Obamacare, struck all the language and the title so that only the former HR number remained, and then inserted a new title and over 2,000 pages of job-killing, economy-crushing, health-care-rationing compost.
Sneaky? Yes. Typical? No doubt. Unconstitutional? Absolutely. It’s like dropping a Ford Pinto engine into a totaled Ferrari body, patching it up and then selling it to some unsuspecting dupe as a “brand new Ferrari.”
Unfortunately, America was that unsuspecting dupe.
Well, the jig’s up. The Constitution is unambiguous on this matter: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Const. art. I §7, cl. 1.
As Liberty Counsel’s brief notes, “Though denominated with a House bill number, the Act actually originated in the Senate, and therefore violates the Origination Clause.”
“Obamacare represents a frontal attack to religious freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Obamacare is a train about to collide with the fundamental right to free exercise of religion. Not only does Obamacare violate the rights of religious employers because of its abortion mandate, it violates the rights of individuals who oppose abortion and the rights of all employers, religious or not.
“And to boot,” continued Staver, “the entire law is invalid because tax bills must originate in the House, and Obamacare originated in the Senate.”
Yep, doctor shortages, medical-school dropouts, skyrocketing premiums, no money for pre-existing conditions, trillions more than promised, forced taxpayer funding of abortion, critical health-care rationing and a bankrupt nation.
Welcome to America’s fall.
Welcome to Obamacare.
Zombies eat brains. If they weren’t already dead, they’d most certainly starve to death on the squalid diet of grey matter served-up by Obama, Reid, Pelosi and every other cracked skull who voted to open the curtain on this unconstitutional Obamacare freak show.
Thankfully, Chief Justice Roberts, whom I strongly suspect regrets voting to uphold it, looks to have another chance to bury it once and for all.
I wonder if that was his strategy all along.
I sure hope so.
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.
source: Oregon Magazine
“Unconstitutional? Absolutely. It’s like dropping a Ford Pinto engine into a totaled Ferrari body, patching it up and then selling it to some unsuspecting dupe as a “brand new Ferrari.”
“But Republican governors are folding like cheap lawn chairs,” you say. “And political eunuchs in the GOP establishment are bowing to Obama like he bows to foreign dictators. Any hope of repeal is long dead, and besides, Chief Justice John Roberts put the final nail in the judicial coffin last summer, didn’t he? Any chance of killing the Obamacare zombie is gone, right?”
Wrong.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media paid it little attention, but back in November the U.S. Supreme Court shocked many in the legal community by granting Liberty Counsel’s motion for a rehearing on its multi-pronged challenge to Obamacare. The high court ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments. This is extremely rare and means, almost certainly, that Chief Justice Roberts will get another bite at the rotten apple – this time, with a whole new quiver of legal arrows.
Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Liberty Counsel recently filed its brief in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner. The Christian civil rights firm represents Liberty University and two private individuals in this case. While there are other legal challenges to the employer contraceptive/abortifacient mandate, Liberty Counsel’s is the most comprehensive case pending in the country.
The lawsuit challenges 1) the employer mandate for all employers; 2) the abortion mandate for religious employers; 3) the abortion mandate for individuals; and 4) the entire law because tax bills must originate in the House and Obamacare originated in the Senate.
This case is the only one in the country that challenges the entire employer mandate for all employers. Like other pending cases, Liberty Counsel’s also challenges the so-called “Preventative coverage” mandate, which requires employers to provide free contraceptives, sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and IUDs, of which the latter two cause abortion.
Additionally, Obamacare compels individual citizens to violate their conscience by making them directly fund abortion homicide – both surgical and chemical – under penalty of law. It forces all employees who are part of a plan that offers abortion coverage to pay $1 per month directly to a “free” abortion fund. There is no opt-out provision, and information relative to which plans offer abortion is intentionally covered-up. This too is part of the case, so don’t let anyone tell you that Obamacare doesn’t require you to fund abortion on demand. If they do, they’re simply lying through their triple-grande-four-pump-hazelnut-mocha-stained teeth.
Finally, Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that Obamacare is invalid because, since it’s a tax – as the Supreme Court already ruled in June – it violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause. To pass constitutional muster, tax bills must originate in the House, not the Senate.
Sneaky? Yes. Typical? No doubt. Unconstitutional? Absolutely. It’s like dropping a Ford Pinto engine into a totaled Ferrari body, patching it up and then selling it to some unsuspecting dupe as a “brand new Ferrari.”
Unfortunately, America was that unsuspecting dupe.
Well, the jig’s up. The Constitution is unambiguous on this matter: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Const. art. I §7, cl. 1.
As Liberty Counsel’s brief notes, “Though denominated with a House bill number, the Act actually originated in the Senate, and therefore violates the Origination Clause.”
“Obamacare represents a frontal attack to religious freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Obamacare is a train about to collide with the fundamental right to free exercise of religion. Not only does Obamacare violate the rights of religious employers because of its abortion mandate, it violates the rights of individuals who oppose abortion and the rights of all employers, religious or not.
“And to boot,” continued Staver, “the entire law is invalid because tax bills must originate in the House, and Obamacare originated in the Senate.”
Yep, doctor shortages, medical-school dropouts, skyrocketing premiums, no money for pre-existing conditions, trillions more than promised, forced taxpayer funding of abortion, critical health-care rationing and a bankrupt nation.
Welcome to America’s fall.
Welcome to Obamacare.
Zombies eat brains. If they weren’t already dead, they’d most certainly starve to death on the squalid diet of grey matter served-up by Obama, Reid, Pelosi and every other cracked skull who voted to open the curtain on this unconstitutional Obamacare freak show.
I wonder if that was his strategy all along.
I sure hope so.
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.
source: Oregon Magazine
Concealed Carry Coming To Illinois, Gang Capital Chicago
March 5, 2013
Guns: An Illinois court has ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says and has ordered the state legislature to adopt a law by June that lets citizens bear arms in self-defense, not just keep them.
On Feb. 22, a 5-4 majority of the 10-member U.S. Seventh Court of Appeals upheld the Dec. 11 decision, which had been rendered by a three-member panel, to address absurdity and inconsistency of Illinois gun laws that allowed ownership of a firearm, but not the right to carry it outside the home. In other words, the "right to keep but not to bear arms."
Because of the decision, Illinois must join the majority of states that have enacted right-to-carry laws.
In the December opinion, Judge Richard Posner wrote that "a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
Furthermore, Judge Posner wrote, "To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald."
These two Supreme Court decisions affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an individual right that indeed could not be infringed upon by the state.
In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's draconian gun law that barred private ownership of handguns.
Justice Scalia wrote that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
On the heels of Heller, however, a three-judge panel of the same Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., on the grounds that Heller applied only to the District of Columbia and not to the states and their municipalities.
That nonsense was straightened out when Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old Army veteran who lived in a high-crime area of Chicago thought the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution he fought to protect gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he once protected his country.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him and in his case said the right to keep and bear arms was not only an individual right, but also a national one.
Still, Illinois argued, you could keep but not carry your arms. The Democrat-controlled Illinois legislature is trying to write a law chock full of those "common-sense restrictions" that President Obama, a Chicago native, warns about.
The gun-control lobby warns of a bloodbath if concealed carry passes in Illinois, as if 500 murders in Chicago, where gangs already carry concealed weapons, is not one.
In a grossly underreported story, a gunman entered a suburban mall in Clackamas, Ore., three days before the tragedy at Newtown, intent on killing as many people as possible. The shooter managed to kill only two people before killing himself. A far worse tragedy was prevented when he was confronted by Nick Meli, an armed citizen with a concealed-carry permit.
The fact is that over the last 20 years, the firearm crime rate has dropped significantly, according to the Bureau of Justice.
Only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 20 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a permit or have "shall issue" laws.
Major crimes, except in gun-controlled major cities, have shown a continuing decline that has paralleled the rise in the number of right-to-carry states.
Soon Illinois will be one of them, and its citizens will be safer.
Source: IBD
Guns: An Illinois court has ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says and has ordered the state legislature to adopt a law by June that lets citizens bear arms in self-defense, not just keep them.
On Feb. 22, a 5-4 majority of the 10-member U.S. Seventh Court of Appeals upheld the Dec. 11 decision, which had been rendered by a three-member panel, to address absurdity and inconsistency of Illinois gun laws that allowed ownership of a firearm, but not the right to carry it outside the home. In other words, the "right to keep but not to bear arms."
Because of the decision, Illinois must join the majority of states that have enacted right-to-carry laws.
In the December opinion, Judge Richard Posner wrote that "a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
Furthermore, Judge Posner wrote, "To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald."
These two Supreme Court decisions affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an individual right that indeed could not be infringed upon by the state.
In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's draconian gun law that barred private ownership of handguns.
Justice Scalia wrote that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
On the heels of Heller, however, a three-judge panel of the same Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., on the grounds that Heller applied only to the District of Columbia and not to the states and their municipalities.
That nonsense was straightened out when Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old Army veteran who lived in a high-crime area of Chicago thought the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution he fought to protect gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he once protected his country.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him and in his case said the right to keep and bear arms was not only an individual right, but also a national one.
Still, Illinois argued, you could keep but not carry your arms. The Democrat-controlled Illinois legislature is trying to write a law chock full of those "common-sense restrictions" that President Obama, a Chicago native, warns about.
The gun-control lobby warns of a bloodbath if concealed carry passes in Illinois, as if 500 murders in Chicago, where gangs already carry concealed weapons, is not one.
In a grossly underreported story, a gunman entered a suburban mall in Clackamas, Ore., three days before the tragedy at Newtown, intent on killing as many people as possible. The shooter managed to kill only two people before killing himself. A far worse tragedy was prevented when he was confronted by Nick Meli, an armed citizen with a concealed-carry permit.
The fact is that over the last 20 years, the firearm crime rate has dropped significantly, according to the Bureau of Justice.
Only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 20 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a permit or have "shall issue" laws.
Major crimes, except in gun-controlled major cities, have shown a continuing decline that has paralleled the rise in the number of right-to-carry states.
Soon Illinois will be one of them, and its citizens will be safer.
Source: IBD
The Greatest Threat to Peace
March 5, 2013
Burning carbon is good for America’s national security.
Last week, the Partnership for a Secure America (PSA), led by former Democratic representative Lee Hamilton and former Republican senator Warren Rudman, released a letter signed by 36 other formerly important people insisting that the United States must take action on climate change for national-security reasons. The letter begins:
The effect of climate change in the world’s most vulnerable regions present[s] a serious threat to American national security interests. As a matter of risk management, the United States must work with international partners, public and private, to address this impending crisis. . . . Both the Department of Defense and the State Department have identified climate change as a serious risk to American security and an agent of instability . . . Climate change impacts could spur mass migrations, influence civil conflict and ultimately lead to a more unpredictable world. . . . Protecting U.S. interests under these conditions would progressively exhaust American military, diplomatic, and development resources . . .
Etc., etc.
That is, global warming doesn’t just threaten the polar bears but is also endangering our troops. So if you care about our brave young men and women in uniform, our national defense, and world peace, get in line and support cap-and-trade.
Well, since the PSA letter’s distinguished signatories are not exactly what one might call original thinkers, it is of some interest to track down where the inspiration (i.e., funding) for this bunk is coming from. According to PSA’s website, its climate-change campaign is funded by a group called the Energy Foundation, which, according to its own website, is a joint project of a gaggle of environmentalist groups.
While comparatively recent in the current context, the use of ersatz national-security arguments to push the environmentalist agenda is not new. In particular, the pitch for restricting carbon use has an eerie resemblance to a similar argument promulgated in the 1960s for promoting population control.
At that time, the Campaign to Stop the Population Explosion — a project led by eugenics bankroller (and subsequent prime sponsor of the first Earth Day) Hugh Moore and Population Crisis Committee (PCC) founder General William Draper — was running lurid full-page ads in leading newspapers warning of all sorts of horrid consequences unless stern population-control measures were implemented in the U.S. and elsewhere. “Have you ever been mugged? Well you may be!” said one such ad, suggesting that aborting more of the poor would help fight crime.
This kind of stuff created a stir, but during the Cold War, the best way to get congressional support for anything, from Moon rockets to higher teacher pay, was to portray it as part of the fight against Communism. So Moore and Draper enlisted the support of Johnson-administration officials and PCC members defense secretary Robert S. McNamara and deputy national-security adviser Robert W. Komer. They went to Congress to argue that swelling populations in Third World countries would man the Communist world revolution, and they successfully lobbied lawmakers to make the imposition of population control a condition for U.S. foreign aid. As a result, since 1966, billions of dollars in U.S.-taxpayer money has been laundered through USAID to such groups as the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to advise or run horrific campaigns of forced sterilizations or abortions, wrecking the lives of tens of millions of poor people in Asia, Africa, and South America.
These campaigns have done nothing to improve American national security. Far from it: As I document in my book Merchants of Despair, they may have contributed to the loss of the Vietnam War. In 1967, on the insistence of Komer, the Johnson administration decided to make U.S. famine aid to India conditional on acceptance of population control rather than support for the Vietnam War effort. More broadly, the crimes systematically committed under these USAID-funded programs have provide ample ammunition for anti-American propagandists of every description across the entire Third World. Yet they continue to this day, with $600 million budgeted for such purposes in FY 2012.
So now we have the global-warming hysterics insisting that U.S. national security and world peace depend upon restricting carbon use. Nothing could be more false. What the world needs most for its stability, and what the U.S. needs for its national security, is economic growth, which is driven first and foremost by expanded carbon use. Nothing could be more regressive than carbon taxes. Nothing could do more to help the world’s poor than to make fossil fuels cheap and plentiful. Nothing could do more harm to America’s national security than a carbon-restricted depressed economy that would make funding our military impossible. Nothing could do more to ensure the wherewithal for our national security than a cheap, carbon-enabled economic boom.
But even beyond these clear material considerations, there is a deeper sense in which the PSA line could not be more wrong. This is that most wars, especially the worst wars, are caused not by poverty, but by destructive ideas. And perhaps the most destructive idea in history is that there is only so much to go around, and so others must be denied their share. It is this idea, enunciated for example by Hitler (“The laws of existence require uninterrupted killing, so that the better may live”), that caused two world wars in the 20th century, and that could cause another in the 21st, should the ideology of the carbon restrictionists be accepted.
Consider the following: If the myth that there is only so much carbon to go around is accepted, then from the point of view of non-Americans, for example the Chinese, it is unacceptable that the United States should continue to prosper — or even to exist. After all, as President Obama has frequently explained, we are only 4 percent of the world’s population, yet we use 25 percent of the fuel. Surely China should seek to put a stop to that. On the other hand, should America’s elites become true believers in the carbon-restrictionist dogma, then the rise of China’s economy can only be seen as a fatal threat to us. What horror, that the sons and daughters of Chinese peasants are now going to university, graduating as scientists and engineers, buying cars, and burning gas! Surely, we must put a stop to that.
Ideas have consequences. Myths can start wars. Germany never needed living space; it has a bigger population now than it did under the Third Reich, on much less land, yet it has a far higher living standard. But because the Germans believed they needed lebensraum, they launched a world war and supported a campaign of genocide. Far from harming the rest of the world — except through perverse campaigns like the population-control efforts — the United States has been its greatest benefactor. We are only 4 percent of the human race, yet for the past century we have been responsible for half of its inventions. If we were reduced to Third World living standards, these inventions would stop. Conversely, impoverished China has not contributed much in recent centuries. But if it successfully develops, its newly educated population will start making inventions that will greatly benefit us.
But the zero-sum ideology of the carbon restrictionists does not allow for a world of such progress and friendship. Instead, it demands a world of war, of all against all.
That is why it is not carbon use, but environmentalism, that is a threat to peace.
— Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Energy, www.pioneerenergy.co, and the author of Energy Victory. His latest book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, was published last year by Encounter Books.
National Review
Burning carbon is good for America’s national security.
Last week, the Partnership for a Secure America (PSA), led by former Democratic representative Lee Hamilton and former Republican senator Warren Rudman, released a letter signed by 36 other formerly important people insisting that the United States must take action on climate change for national-security reasons. The letter begins:
The effect of climate change in the world’s most vulnerable regions present[s] a serious threat to American national security interests. As a matter of risk management, the United States must work with international partners, public and private, to address this impending crisis. . . . Both the Department of Defense and the State Department have identified climate change as a serious risk to American security and an agent of instability . . . Climate change impacts could spur mass migrations, influence civil conflict and ultimately lead to a more unpredictable world. . . . Protecting U.S. interests under these conditions would progressively exhaust American military, diplomatic, and development resources . . .
Etc., etc.
That is, global warming doesn’t just threaten the polar bears but is also endangering our troops. So if you care about our brave young men and women in uniform, our national defense, and world peace, get in line and support cap-and-trade.
Well, since the PSA letter’s distinguished signatories are not exactly what one might call original thinkers, it is of some interest to track down where the inspiration (i.e., funding) for this bunk is coming from. According to PSA’s website, its climate-change campaign is funded by a group called the Energy Foundation, which, according to its own website, is a joint project of a gaggle of environmentalist groups.
While comparatively recent in the current context, the use of ersatz national-security arguments to push the environmentalist agenda is not new. In particular, the pitch for restricting carbon use has an eerie resemblance to a similar argument promulgated in the 1960s for promoting population control.
At that time, the Campaign to Stop the Population Explosion — a project led by eugenics bankroller (and subsequent prime sponsor of the first Earth Day) Hugh Moore and Population Crisis Committee (PCC) founder General William Draper — was running lurid full-page ads in leading newspapers warning of all sorts of horrid consequences unless stern population-control measures were implemented in the U.S. and elsewhere. “Have you ever been mugged? Well you may be!” said one such ad, suggesting that aborting more of the poor would help fight crime.
This kind of stuff created a stir, but during the Cold War, the best way to get congressional support for anything, from Moon rockets to higher teacher pay, was to portray it as part of the fight against Communism. So Moore and Draper enlisted the support of Johnson-administration officials and PCC members defense secretary Robert S. McNamara and deputy national-security adviser Robert W. Komer. They went to Congress to argue that swelling populations in Third World countries would man the Communist world revolution, and they successfully lobbied lawmakers to make the imposition of population control a condition for U.S. foreign aid. As a result, since 1966, billions of dollars in U.S.-taxpayer money has been laundered through USAID to such groups as the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to advise or run horrific campaigns of forced sterilizations or abortions, wrecking the lives of tens of millions of poor people in Asia, Africa, and South America.
These campaigns have done nothing to improve American national security. Far from it: As I document in my book Merchants of Despair, they may have contributed to the loss of the Vietnam War. In 1967, on the insistence of Komer, the Johnson administration decided to make U.S. famine aid to India conditional on acceptance of population control rather than support for the Vietnam War effort. More broadly, the crimes systematically committed under these USAID-funded programs have provide ample ammunition for anti-American propagandists of every description across the entire Third World. Yet they continue to this day, with $600 million budgeted for such purposes in FY 2012.
So now we have the global-warming hysterics insisting that U.S. national security and world peace depend upon restricting carbon use. Nothing could be more false. What the world needs most for its stability, and what the U.S. needs for its national security, is economic growth, which is driven first and foremost by expanded carbon use. Nothing could be more regressive than carbon taxes. Nothing could do more to help the world’s poor than to make fossil fuels cheap and plentiful. Nothing could do more harm to America’s national security than a carbon-restricted depressed economy that would make funding our military impossible. Nothing could do more to ensure the wherewithal for our national security than a cheap, carbon-enabled economic boom.
But even beyond these clear material considerations, there is a deeper sense in which the PSA line could not be more wrong. This is that most wars, especially the worst wars, are caused not by poverty, but by destructive ideas. And perhaps the most destructive idea in history is that there is only so much to go around, and so others must be denied their share. It is this idea, enunciated for example by Hitler (“The laws of existence require uninterrupted killing, so that the better may live”), that caused two world wars in the 20th century, and that could cause another in the 21st, should the ideology of the carbon restrictionists be accepted.
Consider the following: If the myth that there is only so much carbon to go around is accepted, then from the point of view of non-Americans, for example the Chinese, it is unacceptable that the United States should continue to prosper — or even to exist. After all, as President Obama has frequently explained, we are only 4 percent of the world’s population, yet we use 25 percent of the fuel. Surely China should seek to put a stop to that. On the other hand, should America’s elites become true believers in the carbon-restrictionist dogma, then the rise of China’s economy can only be seen as a fatal threat to us. What horror, that the sons and daughters of Chinese peasants are now going to university, graduating as scientists and engineers, buying cars, and burning gas! Surely, we must put a stop to that.
Ideas have consequences. Myths can start wars. Germany never needed living space; it has a bigger population now than it did under the Third Reich, on much less land, yet it has a far higher living standard. But because the Germans believed they needed lebensraum, they launched a world war and supported a campaign of genocide. Far from harming the rest of the world — except through perverse campaigns like the population-control efforts — the United States has been its greatest benefactor. We are only 4 percent of the human race, yet for the past century we have been responsible for half of its inventions. If we were reduced to Third World living standards, these inventions would stop. Conversely, impoverished China has not contributed much in recent centuries. But if it successfully develops, its newly educated population will start making inventions that will greatly benefit us.
But the zero-sum ideology of the carbon restrictionists does not allow for a world of such progress and friendship. Instead, it demands a world of war, of all against all.
That is why it is not carbon use, but environmentalism, that is a threat to peace.
— Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Energy, www.pioneerenergy.co, and the author of Energy Victory. His latest book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, was published last year by Encounter Books.
National Review
With Passover Approaching, a Plague of Locusts Descends Upon Egypt
March 5, 2013
Well imagine that!
As if we hadn't already seen enough Biblical events this year, a plague of over 30 million locusts swarmed over Egypt's cities and farms just three weeks before Passover begins. But put your apocalyptic fears to rest. This happens every year as part of the locusts' natural migration pattern, though this year's swarm is especially large. That doesn't mean Egyptians aren't freaked the heck out by millions of nasty bugs buzzing through the air at all hours of day and night, possibly descending upon the agriculture fields where they're known to destroy entire crops, just like in the actual Passover story.
The crops are so far safe, Egyptian officials assured the public. As the plague made its way from the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia at the end of last week and this weekend, though, Egyptian Agricultural Minister Salah Abdel Moamen explained the situation to the country in a calmly worded statement. "The current inspection teams at areas targeted by locusts did not witness swarms damaging a single inch of crop," said Moamen. He added that the locusts are "sexually immature and do not depend on plants for energy since they mainly rely on fat stores."
That said, these plages can be unpredictable. Egyptian officials didn't expect the plague to pass by the country's capital, until Sunday when the locusts unexpectedly arrived in Cairo. The government denied reports that the locusts had started devastating crops as well as a report from United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that the Ministry of Agriculture cleared 11,000 hectares of land in an attempt to save the harvest. When they get hungry, a one-ton hoard of locusts can eat the same amount of food in one day as 2,500 humans, according to the UN. Egypt knows this too. Less than a decade ago, a plague of locusts nearly 40 miles wide swept over Egypt damaging crops at the majority of the country's farms. That's a picture of it, to the right.
Conflicting reports aside, Moamen insists that the government has everything under control. "Egyptian armed forces and the border guards are attempting to fight the swarm with the means at their disposal," the agriculture minister said. "I ask the families living in the locust-plagued areas not to burn tires. This does not chase away the locusts, but only causes damage and could ignite large scale fires that would cost in lives." Also, that smoke isn't doing Egypt's grandchildren any favors. Scientists anticipate that, as global warming worsens, plagues like this will also get worse.
About a minute into this video you can hear the awful roar that is a plague of locusts:
Atlantic Wire
Well imagine that!
As if we hadn't already seen enough Biblical events this year, a plague of over 30 million locusts swarmed over Egypt's cities and farms just three weeks before Passover begins. But put your apocalyptic fears to rest. This happens every year as part of the locusts' natural migration pattern, though this year's swarm is especially large. That doesn't mean Egyptians aren't freaked the heck out by millions of nasty bugs buzzing through the air at all hours of day and night, possibly descending upon the agriculture fields where they're known to destroy entire crops, just like in the actual Passover story.
The crops are so far safe, Egyptian officials assured the public. As the plague made its way from the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia at the end of last week and this weekend, though, Egyptian Agricultural Minister Salah Abdel Moamen explained the situation to the country in a calmly worded statement. "The current inspection teams at areas targeted by locusts did not witness swarms damaging a single inch of crop," said Moamen. He added that the locusts are "sexually immature and do not depend on plants for energy since they mainly rely on fat stores."
Conflicting reports aside, Moamen insists that the government has everything under control. "Egyptian armed forces and the border guards are attempting to fight the swarm with the means at their disposal," the agriculture minister said. "I ask the families living in the locust-plagued areas not to burn tires. This does not chase away the locusts, but only causes damage and could ignite large scale fires that would cost in lives." Also, that smoke isn't doing Egypt's grandchildren any favors. Scientists anticipate that, as global warming worsens, plagues like this will also get worse.
About a minute into this video you can hear the awful roar that is a plague of locusts:
Atlantic Wire
Bloomberg booed at annual St. Patrick’s Parade in storm-ravaged Rockaways
March 5, 2013
Mayor Bloomberg was booed yesterday as he walked in the annual St. Patrick’s Parade in the hurricane-ravaged Rockaways.
The jeers grew so loud toward the end of the Queens parade that mayoral candidate and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn appeared to break away from the mayor to march separately.
A spokesman for Quinn later said she always intended to walk separately from the mayor.
Locals didn’t spare their ire over the area’s slow recovery, hoisting signs reading, “Mr. Mayor, we need jetties” and “Listen to the Rockaways.”
“We’ve been dying down here, up to our ears in muck trying to rebuild, get back to a regular life,” one heckler told The Post.
“For the politicians to come down here and try to take our celebration and make it their thing . . . it’s disgusting.”
At the end of the route, Bloomberg thanked the Sanitation Department, cops and firefighters who worked to restore the neighborhood after the storm.
“I don’t think there’s anybody who could have ever done the job that you guys did,” the mayor said before he jumped in his car and was driven away.
The mayor wasn’t the only politician crossed by paradegoers.
Revelers heckled Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer after he cheered through a bullhorn, “Let’s hear it for the Rockaways.”
“Send money, pal. Send money!” one heckler yelled back. “Talk is cheap!”
Public Advocate and mayoral contender Bill de Blasio’s crew was also booed after a staffer chanted through a megaphone, “Mission accomplished. Thanks, Bill de Blasio.”
Many Rockaway residents saw the parade as a sign of their neighborhood’s recovery.
“This town really needed this parade, just to show the world that this hurricane is not going to keep us down,” said Nick Muro, 49, a plumber. “We’re looking forward to the bands, the bagpipers — they’re really just pumping us all back up,” he added. “We needed this parade just to show the world that this hurricane is not going to keep us down.”
“This is Rockaways’ rebirth,” said retired sanitation worker Patrick Kearns, 58.
New York Post
 |
| SHOW US THE MONEY: Hecklers give Mayor Bloomberg the business yesterday as he marched in a St. Patrick’s Parade in the hurricane-ravaged Rockaways. |
The jeers grew so loud toward the end of the Queens parade that mayoral candidate and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn appeared to break away from the mayor to march separately.
A spokesman for Quinn later said she always intended to walk separately from the mayor.
Locals didn’t spare their ire over the area’s slow recovery, hoisting signs reading, “Mr. Mayor, we need jetties” and “Listen to the Rockaways.”
“We’ve been dying down here, up to our ears in muck trying to rebuild, get back to a regular life,” one heckler told The Post.
“For the politicians to come down here and try to take our celebration and make it their thing . . . it’s disgusting.”
 |
| Mayor Bloomberg |
“I don’t think there’s anybody who could have ever done the job that you guys did,” the mayor said before he jumped in his car and was driven away.
The mayor wasn’t the only politician crossed by paradegoers.
Revelers heckled Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer after he cheered through a bullhorn, “Let’s hear it for the Rockaways.”
“Send money, pal. Send money!” one heckler yelled back. “Talk is cheap!”
Public Advocate and mayoral contender Bill de Blasio’s crew was also booed after a staffer chanted through a megaphone, “Mission accomplished. Thanks, Bill de Blasio.”
Many Rockaway residents saw the parade as a sign of their neighborhood’s recovery.
“This town really needed this parade, just to show the world that this hurricane is not going to keep us down,” said Nick Muro, 49, a plumber. “We’re looking forward to the bands, the bagpipers — they’re really just pumping us all back up,” he added. “We needed this parade just to show the world that this hurricane is not going to keep us down.”
“This is Rockaways’ rebirth,” said retired sanitation worker Patrick Kearns, 58.
New York Post
Dennis Rodman ‘Won’t Apologize’ For ‘My Friend’ Kim Jong Un’s Murderous Regime: ‘We Do The Same Thing Here’
March 5, 2013
(Mediaite) - Former NBA start Dennis Rodman stood by his controversial trip to North Korea and remarks about its dictator Kim Jong-Un on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Rodman downplayed his trip that some are calling “basketball diplomacy” saying that he is not a diplomat while brushing aside allegations about North Korean death camps by saying “we do the same thing here.”
Rodman, wearing sunglasses indoors and dressed in a money jacket and blue polo baseball cap, said he did not talk about politics with Kim, sticking to basketball and having a good time with the North Korean dictator.
Stephanopoulos challenged Rodman repeatedly on his travel to North Korea and its atrocious human rights record but Rodman wasn’t having it.
“I don’t condone that. I hate the fact that he’s doing that. I didn’t talk about that. I saw people respected him, his family. He’s only 28. He’s not his dad. He’s not his grandpa. He is 28 years old. He’s very humble. He’s a very humble man. He don’t want war, that’s one thing he don’t want. He loves power. He loves control, because of his father, you know, stuff like that. But he’s just…he’s a great guy. He’s just a great guy. You sit down and talk to him,” said Rodman.
When Stephanopoulos went after Rodman on not talking about North Korean death camps he said, “We do the same things here.”
A dumbfounded Stephanopoulos replied, “We have prison camps here in the United States?”
“This is all politics right? He don’t want to do that,” said Rodman.
“It sounds like you’re apologizing for him?” said Stephanopoulos.
“No, I’m not apologizing for him. He was a great guy to me. He was my friend. I don’t condone what he does. But as a person to person, he’s my friend. What I did was history. He’s a friend to me. That’s about it,” said Rodman.
Before leaving Stephanopoulos handed him a human rights report on North Korea. Rodman thanked him for the report and left the show saying, “Don’t hate me.”
Watch below via ABC
Rodman, wearing sunglasses indoors and dressed in a money jacket and blue polo baseball cap, said he did not talk about politics with Kim, sticking to basketball and having a good time with the North Korean dictator.
Stephanopoulos challenged Rodman repeatedly on his travel to North Korea and its atrocious human rights record but Rodman wasn’t having it.
“I don’t condone that. I hate the fact that he’s doing that. I didn’t talk about that. I saw people respected him, his family. He’s only 28. He’s not his dad. He’s not his grandpa. He is 28 years old. He’s very humble. He’s a very humble man. He don’t want war, that’s one thing he don’t want. He loves power. He loves control, because of his father, you know, stuff like that. But he’s just…he’s a great guy. He’s just a great guy. You sit down and talk to him,” said Rodman.
When Stephanopoulos went after Rodman on not talking about North Korean death camps he said, “We do the same things here.”
A dumbfounded Stephanopoulos replied, “We have prison camps here in the United States?”
“This is all politics right? He don’t want to do that,” said Rodman.
“It sounds like you’re apologizing for him?” said Stephanopoulos.
“No, I’m not apologizing for him. He was a great guy to me. He was my friend. I don’t condone what he does. But as a person to person, he’s my friend. What I did was history. He’s a friend to me. That’s about it,” said Rodman.
Before leaving Stephanopoulos handed him a human rights report on North Korea. Rodman thanked him for the report and left the show saying, “Don’t hate me.”
Watch below via ABC
Police: Naked man crashes vehicle into Susquehanna River after high-speed chase
March 4, 2013
White Punks on Dope
Update, 7:30 p.m.:
A man wanted for a carjacking in Maryland led police on a chase in York County on Sunday morning - driving 90 mph at times and trying to ram police twice - then drove a stolen minivan into the Susquehanna River.
When police arrived near the crashed vehicle in Goldsboro, the man "was standing on top of the car, naked, as the vehicle was submerging," Springettsbury Township Police Chief Thomas Hyers said.
The chase originated in Springettsbury Township about 10:15 a.m., and was first reported as an erratic driver in a green minivan taxi cab, Hyers said.
It crossed three jurisdictions, Springettsbury Township, Northern York County Regional and Newberry Township.
"At one point, there were five (police) cars in the pursuit," Hyers said.
Newberry Township Police Officer Kevin Romine said the pursuit began near the intersection of East Market Street and Route 24.
The vehicle, a green Plymouth Voyager, was owned by Victory Cab Company and had been reported stolen earlier that day, Romine said.
The man, who police did not identify, was wanted in Maryland for an armed robbery, which allegedly he had committed just prior to taking the minivan, Romine said.
When Springettsbury Township Police spotted it, the minivan was traveling with a flat tire. When officers tried to stop the minivan, it fled, traveled into Manchester Township, and got on Interstate 83, Romine said.
The minivan reached speeds of 80-90 mph while on I-83 North, Hyers said. It then got off I-83 and drove into Newberry Township's jurisdiction, and eventually into Goldsboro, Romine said.
Goldsboro resident Adrienne Intrieri, 24, said she was in her home watching television when a car sped by, with several police vehicles behind it.
"So I knew something was going on," she said. "It's kind of crazy - stuff like this doesn't happen around here."
"It was a minivan floating down the river with a naked guy on it waving his underwear over his head," said Michael Shirk of Goldsboro.
The minivan landed in the river at 10:37 a.m., in about eight feet of water, Romine said. After the driver got out of the minivan and swam to shore, police arrested him and took him to York Hospital to be treated for hypothermia.
Recovery crews responded to the first block of South River Street, where the vehicle went into the river, to see if they could find it. they spent several hours looking for it, plumbing the waters with long poles, and using sonar equipment to try to detect it.
At 3:15 p.m., Hyers said that the crews had not found the minivan and were about to wrap up the search for the day, and resume again Monday.
"They think it (the minivan) is as much as three-quarters of a mile down the river," Hyers said.
Reported earlier: Update, 12 p.m.: A chase that crossed three jurisdictions and reached speeds of more than 80 mph ended with a man standing naked on his vehicle as it sank in the Susquehanna River this afternoon, police said.
When police arrived near the crashed vehicle in Goldsboro, the man "was standing on top of the car, naked, as the vehicle was submerging," Springettsbury Township Police Chief Thomas Hyers said.
The chase originated in Springettsbury Township and was first reported as an erratic driver in a green minivan taxi cab, Hyers said. It crossed three jurisdictions, Springettsbury Township, Northern York County Regional and Newberry Township.
The vehicle was reported carjacked earlier this morning, Hyers said. The vehicle reached speeds between 80 to 90 mph and tried to ram police vehicles twice during the pursuit, he said.
The man was taken to York Hospital to be treated for hypothermia.
Original report: A search crew is working to recover a vehicle from the Susquehanna River in Goldsboro.
Crews are currently working in the water to recover the vehicle. More information will be posted as it becomes available.
ydr
White Punks on Dope
Update, 7:30 p.m.:
A man wanted for a carjacking in Maryland led police on a chase in York County on Sunday morning - driving 90 mph at times and trying to ram police twice - then drove a stolen minivan into the Susquehanna River.
When police arrived near the crashed vehicle in Goldsboro, the man "was standing on top of the car, naked, as the vehicle was submerging," Springettsbury Township Police Chief Thomas Hyers said.
The chase originated in Springettsbury Township about 10:15 a.m., and was first reported as an erratic driver in a green minivan taxi cab, Hyers said.
It crossed three jurisdictions, Springettsbury Township, Northern York County Regional and Newberry Township.
"At one point, there were five (police) cars in the pursuit," Hyers said.
Newberry Township Police Officer Kevin Romine said the pursuit began near the intersection of East Market Street and Route 24.
The vehicle, a green Plymouth Voyager, was owned by Victory Cab Company and had been reported stolen earlier that day, Romine said.
The man, who police did not identify, was wanted in Maryland for an armed robbery, which allegedly he had committed just prior to taking the minivan, Romine said.
When Springettsbury Township Police spotted it, the minivan was traveling with a flat tire. When officers tried to stop the minivan, it fled, traveled into Manchester Township, and got on Interstate 83, Romine said.
The minivan reached speeds of 80-90 mph while on I-83 North, Hyers said. It then got off I-83 and drove into Newberry Township's jurisdiction, and eventually into Goldsboro, Romine said.
Goldsboro resident Adrienne Intrieri, 24, said she was in her home watching television when a car sped by, with several police vehicles behind it.
"So I knew something was going on," she said. "It's kind of crazy - stuff like this doesn't happen around here."
The minivan landed in the river at 10:37 a.m., in about eight feet of water, Romine said. After the driver got out of the minivan and swam to shore, police arrested him and took him to York Hospital to be treated for hypothermia.
Recovery crews responded to the first block of South River Street, where the vehicle went into the river, to see if they could find it. they spent several hours looking for it, plumbing the waters with long poles, and using sonar equipment to try to detect it.
At 3:15 p.m., Hyers said that the crews had not found the minivan and were about to wrap up the search for the day, and resume again Monday.
"They think it (the minivan) is as much as three-quarters of a mile down the river," Hyers said.
Reported earlier: Update, 12 p.m.: A chase that crossed three jurisdictions and reached speeds of more than 80 mph ended with a man standing naked on his vehicle as it sank in the Susquehanna River this afternoon, police said.
When police arrived near the crashed vehicle in Goldsboro, the man "was standing on top of the car, naked, as the vehicle was submerging," Springettsbury Township Police Chief Thomas Hyers said.
The chase originated in Springettsbury Township and was first reported as an erratic driver in a green minivan taxi cab, Hyers said. It crossed three jurisdictions, Springettsbury Township, Northern York County Regional and Newberry Township.
The vehicle was reported carjacked earlier this morning, Hyers said. The vehicle reached speeds between 80 to 90 mph and tried to ram police vehicles twice during the pursuit, he said.
The man was taken to York Hospital to be treated for hypothermia.
Original report: A search crew is working to recover a vehicle from the Susquehanna River in Goldsboro.
Crews are currently working in the water to recover the vehicle. More information will be posted as it becomes available.
ydr
Sunday, March 3, 2013
The White House Joins the Cash Grab
March 3, 2013
It is tempting to applaud the nonprofit group now spending nearly $100,000 on ads to pressure Republican lawmakers to accept gun-control measures. The group is fighting a well-financed and powerful corporate gun lobby that has never hesitated to spend millions to get its way in Congress.
But a closer look at this group shows how disturbing its work really is. Its name is Organizing for Action, and if its initials seem familiar, that’s because the group is the direct descendant of Obama for America, the president’s campaign organization in 2008 and 2012. That organization is now defunct, but its new incarnation has its extremely valuable voter database and many of the same strategists. What it does not have are the campaign’s old limits on who can donate money and how much they can give.
In fact, there are no limits, because the group has reorganized as a 501(c)(4), a so-called social welfare group unbound by campaign restrictions. Corporations and billionaires can write checks of any size, aware that they are giving to a group with close ties to the White House, one that is busily promoting President Obama’s agenda. And now that this White House has torn down the last wall between its needs and those of special interests, others in the future will undoubtedly do the same.
The organization plans to raise $50 million, Nicholas Confessore of The Times recently reported, at least half of which will come from donors pressured to bring in $500,000 or more. Give or raise that much and you get to be on the group’s “national advisory board,” which will hold quarterly meetings with the president. That is nothing more than a fancy way of setting a price for access to Mr. Obama.
For a $50,000 check, donors can attend a “founders summit” later this month at a Washington hotel, where they can mingle with Jim Messina, Organizing for Action’s chairman and the president’s former campaign manager, and Jon Carson, the group’s executive director and formerly the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. Another longtime presidential adviser, David Plouffe, is also involved with the group.
It is understandable that the White House might want to make use of its campaign voter list, mobilizing supporters when it needs help getting bills through Congress. The group’s leaders say they will be holding rallies on important topics ranging from immigration to climate change, and note that this kind of organizing is expensive. But the frantic pursuit of big money makes it impossible to call this a grass-roots effort.
Any corporation with a matter pending before the administration can give lavishly to Organizing for Action as a way of currying favor, knowing that the West Wing will take note. (The group does not have to disclose its donors but says it will, and also plans to reject money from registered lobbyists and PACs.) It is also a way for donors to bypass the limits on giving to the Democratic Party: the new group does similar work, but without the restrictions on donations.
When conservative groups first began using social welfare groups as vehicles for fund-raising and advocacy, Mr. Obama denounced the practice. “You can’t stand by and let the special interests drown out the voices of the American people,” he said in 2010. A year later, though, he allowed his supporters to set up a “super PAC” called Priorities USA Action, and the new group is built on the same defeatist philosophy of “if you can’t beat them, join them.”
If Organizing for Action wants to restore the bracing political spirit that carried Mr. Obama into office in 2008, it can refuse all corporate contributions and limit donations to a few hundred dollars. Otherwise, it will be playing the same sleazy game that its opponents do, made even worse by the assent of the president.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: March 2, 2013
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Obama, is involved with Organizing for Action.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on March 3, 2013, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: The White House Joins the Cash Grab.
New York Times
It is tempting to applaud the nonprofit group now spending nearly $100,000 on ads to pressure Republican lawmakers to accept gun-control measures. The group is fighting a well-financed and powerful corporate gun lobby that has never hesitated to spend millions to get its way in Congress.
But a closer look at this group shows how disturbing its work really is. Its name is Organizing for Action, and if its initials seem familiar, that’s because the group is the direct descendant of Obama for America, the president’s campaign organization in 2008 and 2012. That organization is now defunct, but its new incarnation has its extremely valuable voter database and many of the same strategists. What it does not have are the campaign’s old limits on who can donate money and how much they can give.
In fact, there are no limits, because the group has reorganized as a 501(c)(4), a so-called social welfare group unbound by campaign restrictions. Corporations and billionaires can write checks of any size, aware that they are giving to a group with close ties to the White House, one that is busily promoting President Obama’s agenda. And now that this White House has torn down the last wall between its needs and those of special interests, others in the future will undoubtedly do the same.
The organization plans to raise $50 million, Nicholas Confessore of The Times recently reported, at least half of which will come from donors pressured to bring in $500,000 or more. Give or raise that much and you get to be on the group’s “national advisory board,” which will hold quarterly meetings with the president. That is nothing more than a fancy way of setting a price for access to Mr. Obama.
For a $50,000 check, donors can attend a “founders summit” later this month at a Washington hotel, where they can mingle with Jim Messina, Organizing for Action’s chairman and the president’s former campaign manager, and Jon Carson, the group’s executive director and formerly the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. Another longtime presidential adviser, David Plouffe, is also involved with the group.
It is understandable that the White House might want to make use of its campaign voter list, mobilizing supporters when it needs help getting bills through Congress. The group’s leaders say they will be holding rallies on important topics ranging from immigration to climate change, and note that this kind of organizing is expensive. But the frantic pursuit of big money makes it impossible to call this a grass-roots effort.
Any corporation with a matter pending before the administration can give lavishly to Organizing for Action as a way of currying favor, knowing that the West Wing will take note. (The group does not have to disclose its donors but says it will, and also plans to reject money from registered lobbyists and PACs.) It is also a way for donors to bypass the limits on giving to the Democratic Party: the new group does similar work, but without the restrictions on donations.
When conservative groups first began using social welfare groups as vehicles for fund-raising and advocacy, Mr. Obama denounced the practice. “You can’t stand by and let the special interests drown out the voices of the American people,” he said in 2010. A year later, though, he allowed his supporters to set up a “super PAC” called Priorities USA Action, and the new group is built on the same defeatist philosophy of “if you can’t beat them, join them.”
If Organizing for Action wants to restore the bracing political spirit that carried Mr. Obama into office in 2008, it can refuse all corporate contributions and limit donations to a few hundred dollars. Otherwise, it will be playing the same sleazy game that its opponents do, made even worse by the assent of the president.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: March 2, 2013
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Obama, is involved with Organizing for Action.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on March 3, 2013, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: The White House Joins the Cash Grab.
New York Times
Testimony: DHS No Longer Uses Control of Border as Measure of Border Patrol
March 3, 2013
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Department of Homeland Security no longer uses control of the actual border as a measure of how well the Border Patrol is doing its job, according to written testimony released today by the Government Accountability Office.
The GAO said that by the end of fiscal 2010, the Border Patrol had been able to secure “operational control” of only 44 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border. Then, with 56 percent of the border not under “operational control,” DHS simply stopped using “operational control” as a measure of the Border Patrol’s performance.
Since then, DHS has counted the number of illegal border crossers the Border Patrol apprehends, and used this count as an “interim” measure of whether the Border Patrol is accomplishing its mission.
According to GAO, this “interim” measure limits DHS’s accountability and Congress’s ability to conduct oversight of the department.
“At the end of fiscal year 2010, DHS reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles,” Rebecca Gambler, the GAO’s director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Border.
“In fiscal year 2011, citing a need to establish new goals and measures that reflect a more quantitative methodology and an evolving vision for border control, DHS transitioned to using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border as an interim goal and measure,” Gambler said. “As GAO previously testified, this interim measure, which reports on program activity levels and not program results, limits DHS and congressional oversight and accountability.”
Starting in 2004, Congress provided the Border Patrol with a significant increase in resources, which until 2010 were focused on actually securing the physical border of the United States.
“For example, from fiscal years 2004 through 2011, the number of Border Patrol agents on the southwest border nearly doubled, from about 9,500 to about 18,500; and DHS reported that since fiscal year 2006, about $4.4 billion has been invested in southwest border technology and infrastructure,” Gambler testified. “Through fiscal year 2010, these resources were used to support DHS’s goal to achieve 'operational control' of the nation’s borders by reducing cross-border illegal activity.”
The Border Patrol said it had “operational control” of a mile of border when it could not only detect illegal border crossers there but actually interdict them when they crossed.
“The extent of operational control—also referred to as effective control—was defined as the number of border miles where Border Patrol had the capability to detect, respond to, and interdict cross-border illegal activity,” Gambler testified.
In its most recent strategic plan for DHS, the Obama Administration indicated that it intended to begin focusing resources on “mitigating risk” from illegal penetration of the U.S. border rather than increasing the security of the border itself.
But GAO concluded that the interim measure of counting the illegal border crossers the Border Patrol actually apprehended was not a good measure of the agency's effectiveness.
“Further, studies commissioned by CBP have documented that the number of apprehensions bears little relationship to effectiveness because agency officials do not compare these numbers with the amount of cross-border illegal activity,” Gambler testified.
 |
| DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano (AP Photo) |
The GAO said that by the end of fiscal 2010, the Border Patrol had been able to secure “operational control” of only 44 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border. Then, with 56 percent of the border not under “operational control,” DHS simply stopped using “operational control” as a measure of the Border Patrol’s performance.
Since then, DHS has counted the number of illegal border crossers the Border Patrol apprehends, and used this count as an “interim” measure of whether the Border Patrol is accomplishing its mission.
According to GAO, this “interim” measure limits DHS’s accountability and Congress’s ability to conduct oversight of the department.
“At the end of fiscal year 2010, DHS reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles,” Rebecca Gambler, the GAO’s director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Border.
“In fiscal year 2011, citing a need to establish new goals and measures that reflect a more quantitative methodology and an evolving vision for border control, DHS transitioned to using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border as an interim goal and measure,” Gambler said. “As GAO previously testified, this interim measure, which reports on program activity levels and not program results, limits DHS and congressional oversight and accountability.”
Starting in 2004, Congress provided the Border Patrol with a significant increase in resources, which until 2010 were focused on actually securing the physical border of the United States.
“For example, from fiscal years 2004 through 2011, the number of Border Patrol agents on the southwest border nearly doubled, from about 9,500 to about 18,500; and DHS reported that since fiscal year 2006, about $4.4 billion has been invested in southwest border technology and infrastructure,” Gambler testified. “Through fiscal year 2010, these resources were used to support DHS’s goal to achieve 'operational control' of the nation’s borders by reducing cross-border illegal activity.”
The Border Patrol said it had “operational control” of a mile of border when it could not only detect illegal border crossers there but actually interdict them when they crossed.
“The extent of operational control—also referred to as effective control—was defined as the number of border miles where Border Patrol had the capability to detect, respond to, and interdict cross-border illegal activity,” Gambler testified.
In its most recent strategic plan for DHS, the Obama Administration indicated that it intended to begin focusing resources on “mitigating risk” from illegal penetration of the U.S. border rather than increasing the security of the border itself.
But GAO concluded that the interim measure of counting the illegal border crossers the Border Patrol actually apprehended was not a good measure of the agency's effectiveness.
“Further, studies commissioned by CBP have documented that the number of apprehensions bears little relationship to effectiveness because agency officials do not compare these numbers with the amount of cross-border illegal activity,” Gambler testified.
Obama appoints new Mideast coordinator
March 3, 2013
AFP - President Barack Obama has appointed a new coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf, the White House announced Saturday.
Philip Gordon, a veteran foreign policy expert, will take up his post on March 11.
The appointment came two weeks before Obama is set to visit Israel, Ramallah in the occupied Palestinian territories and Jordan.
National Security Adviser Tom Donilon praised Gordon as a "key member" of Obama's foreign policy team who was the "perfect person" to coordinate US policy.
"His work with our European allies and partners has been indispensable in helping us to formulate policy and address issues around the globe, including Libya, Syria and Iran," Donilon said in a statement.
"His work on international security, international economics and European and Middle Eastern Affairs make him the perfect person to coordinate our policy in this time of great challenge and opportunity in the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf."
He joins a team that includes Puneet Talwar, special assistant to the president and senior director for the Gulf states, Iran and Iraq, and Prem Kumar, acting senior director for the Middle East and North Africa.
Gordon has served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs since May 2009, with responsibility for US policy in 50 countries, as well as NATO, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Before that, he was a foreign policy adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and served as director for European affairs at the National Security Council under president Bill Clinton.
 |
| Phillip Gordon speaks at a press conference in Tbilisi on June 10, 2009. US President Barack Obama has appointed Gordon as the new coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region, the White House announced Saturday. |
AFP - President Barack Obama has appointed a new coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf, the White House announced Saturday.
Philip Gordon, a veteran foreign policy expert, will take up his post on March 11.
The appointment came two weeks before Obama is set to visit Israel, Ramallah in the occupied Palestinian territories and Jordan.
National Security Adviser Tom Donilon praised Gordon as a "key member" of Obama's foreign policy team who was the "perfect person" to coordinate US policy.
"His work with our European allies and partners has been indispensable in helping us to formulate policy and address issues around the globe, including Libya, Syria and Iran," Donilon said in a statement.
"His work on international security, international economics and European and Middle Eastern Affairs make him the perfect person to coordinate our policy in this time of great challenge and opportunity in the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf."
He joins a team that includes Puneet Talwar, special assistant to the president and senior director for the Gulf states, Iran and Iraq, and Prem Kumar, acting senior director for the Middle East and North Africa.
Gordon has served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs since May 2009, with responsibility for US policy in 50 countries, as well as NATO, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Before that, he was a foreign policy adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and served as director for European affairs at the National Security Council under president Bill Clinton.
Soccer Violence Update: Clashes in Egypt Port Said as police move prisoners
March 3, 2013
Wake up America! The American Left's media has launched a fierce attack on the NFL over injuries, yet schools, colleges and organization continuously promote soccer as a civilized sport or even replacement.
AFP - Protesters clashed with police Sunday in the Egyptian city of Port Said as the interior ministry decided to move 39 prisoners awaiting a verdict over alleged involvement in a deadly football riot, a security official said.
The verdict, expected next Saturday, is for the remaining defendants in a case which resulted in death sentences in January for 21 defendants, sparking clashes that killed at least 40 people.
A security official said protesters threw petrol bombs and stones at the police station in the restive Suez Canal city, where a general strike entered its third week. Police responded with tear gas.
The interior ministry said it decided to move prisoners from Port Said, starting with the 39 remaining defendants over the February 2012 football violence, because it wanted to avoid unrest.
Protesters on Saturday torched a police station in Port Said and prevented fire engines from reaching the blaze.
Residents of Port Said and other canal cities have long complained that Cairo marginalises them.
Last year's football riot which killed 74 people, mostly supporters of a visiting Cairo team, exacerbated Port Said's isolation, they say.
Wake up America! The American Left's media has launched a fierce attack on the NFL over injuries, yet schools, colleges and organization continuously promote soccer as a civilized sport or even replacement.
 |
| Egyptians protesters shout slogans during a demonstration outside the government office on February 21, 2013 in the canal city of Port Said, southern Egypt. Protesters clashed with police Sunday as the interior ministry decided to move 39 prisoners awaiting a verdict over alleged involvement in a deadly football riot, a security official said. |
AFP - Protesters clashed with police Sunday in the Egyptian city of Port Said as the interior ministry decided to move 39 prisoners awaiting a verdict over alleged involvement in a deadly football riot, a security official said.
The verdict, expected next Saturday, is for the remaining defendants in a case which resulted in death sentences in January for 21 defendants, sparking clashes that killed at least 40 people.
A security official said protesters threw petrol bombs and stones at the police station in the restive Suez Canal city, where a general strike entered its third week. Police responded with tear gas.
The interior ministry said it decided to move prisoners from Port Said, starting with the 39 remaining defendants over the February 2012 football violence, because it wanted to avoid unrest.
Protesters on Saturday torched a police station in Port Said and prevented fire engines from reaching the blaze.
Residents of Port Said and other canal cities have long complained that Cairo marginalises them.
Last year's football riot which killed 74 people, mostly supporters of a visiting Cairo team, exacerbated Port Said's isolation, they say.
Iran blocks Russian news website
March 3, 2013
TEHRAN (UPI) -- Iran's culture ministry cut off Internet access to state-owned Russian news outlet Voice of Russia, the network said.
Russian officials said there was no warning or reason given for blocking the outlet's website and officials said they have sought a response from the Iranian embassy in Moscow, Middle East News said Saturday.
"It is especially surprising because the Persian service of the Voice of Russia is a government medium, and usually has a fair stance toward Iran," the news agency's statement said.
Russian officials said the move might jeopardize "high level" "friendly" ties between the two countries.
TEHRAN (UPI) -- Iran's culture ministry cut off Internet access to state-owned Russian news outlet Voice of Russia, the network said.
Russian officials said there was no warning or reason given for blocking the outlet's website and officials said they have sought a response from the Iranian embassy in Moscow, Middle East News said Saturday.
"It is especially surprising because the Persian service of the Voice of Russia is a government medium, and usually has a fair stance toward Iran," the news agency's statement said.
Russian officials said the move might jeopardize "high level" "friendly" ties between the two countries.
Daily Laugher: John Kerry: "U.S. friends with Egyptian people"
March 3, 2013
Yep. America's Left in charge loves the Egyptian people so much they endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood to lead them. With friends like that, who needs enemies..
CAIRO (UPI) -- John Kerry, on his first visit to Cairo as U.S. secretary of state, told reporters Saturday the Egyptian people must choose their own government.
Kerry left Washington last Sunday on a whirlwind nine-day tour of European and Middle Eastern countries. He held a news conference with his Egyptian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr.
"I've tried to make it clear, and I make it particularly clear now on behalf of President Obama and the American people that we come here as friends for the Egyptian people, not for one government or one person or one party or ideology, but for the Egyptian people," he said.
But Kerry also suggested Egyptians need unity. The country in recent weeks has been hit by demonstrations and riots fueled by anger towards President Mohamed Morsi and the Freedom and Justice Party, political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
"We do believe that in this moment of serious economic challenge that it's important for the Egyptian people to come together around the economic choices and to find some common ground in making those choices," Kerry said.
Some opposition leaders, including Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the National Salvation Front, refused to meet with Kerry.
Yep. America's Left in charge loves the Egyptian people so much they endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood to lead them. With friends like that, who needs enemies..
 |
| U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, shown in a photo from earlier in the week, told reporters Saturday the Egyptian people must choose their own government. UPI/David Silpa License photo |
CAIRO (UPI) -- John Kerry, on his first visit to Cairo as U.S. secretary of state, told reporters Saturday the Egyptian people must choose their own government.
Kerry left Washington last Sunday on a whirlwind nine-day tour of European and Middle Eastern countries. He held a news conference with his Egyptian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr.
"I've tried to make it clear, and I make it particularly clear now on behalf of President Obama and the American people that we come here as friends for the Egyptian people, not for one government or one person or one party or ideology, but for the Egyptian people," he said.
But Kerry also suggested Egyptians need unity. The country in recent weeks has been hit by demonstrations and riots fueled by anger towards President Mohamed Morsi and the Freedom and Justice Party, political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.
"We do believe that in this moment of serious economic challenge that it's important for the Egyptian people to come together around the economic choices and to find some common ground in making those choices," Kerry said.
Some opposition leaders, including Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the National Salvation Front, refused to meet with Kerry.
Survey: 74% of families who earn between $35,000 and $100,000 say they can't afford to save for college
March 3, 2013
Families of college-bound students remain optimistic — perhaps too optimistic — about their ability to cover tuition costs, according to a new survey of more than 1,600 parents with children under 18.
The survey, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs on behalf of student-aid company Sallie Mae in August, was released Tuesday.
The parents who have set savings goals — just 50% of respondents, down from 60% in 2010 — plan to sock away about $39,000 per child, or about one-third of future college costs. That’s in line with what parents actually do pay, according to a prior Sallie Mae report. However, at their current pace of savings, most families will hit just half that savings amount. (The good news is that most families ramp up savings as their children near high school.)
Not only did fewer families save for college last year, but they also saved less. Parents who saved have socked away almost $12,000 total last year, a sharp drop from over $20,000 reported in 2010. That might explain why only 55% of those who are saving for college said this year that they feel confident about being able to cover the costs. (The Wall Street Journal’s “Price of Admission” series explores this issue).
High-income parents, those earning $100,000 or more, saved much more money than those earning less: almost $20,000, on average. But savers who earned less than $35,000 annually put 6% of their income away for college, a higher proportion than high-income parents, who saved 3%.
For those parents who aren’t saving for college, 53% say a major reason is that they can’t afford it. Another 18% cite that as a minor reason, while 13% say a lack of money plays no role in their college-savings decision. More than half of nonsavers say they’re not saving at least in part because they expect their children to receive scholarships and grants to cover college costs.
But that’s a risky calculation to make, as the average amount of funding U.S. undergraduates got from grants and scholarships fell 15% during the last academic year. On average, students received $6,077 in grants and scholarships in the 2011-2012 academic year, down from $7,124 a year earlier, according to a July Sallie Mae study.
Unsurprisingly, 70% of parents with income below $35,000 say a lack of money comprises at least part of the reason why they’re not saving for college. But what is a shock is that the share of families who earn between $35,000 and $100,000 and say they can’t afford to save is even higher, at 74%. (Among families earning $100,000 or more, 72% of respondents cite money — or lack thereof — as a reason for not saving.)
source: wsj
Families of college-bound students remain optimistic — perhaps too optimistic — about their ability to cover tuition costs, according to a new survey of more than 1,600 parents with children under 18.
The survey, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs on behalf of student-aid company Sallie Mae in August, was released Tuesday.
Not only did fewer families save for college last year, but they also saved less. Parents who saved have socked away almost $12,000 total last year, a sharp drop from over $20,000 reported in 2010. That might explain why only 55% of those who are saving for college said this year that they feel confident about being able to cover the costs. (The Wall Street Journal’s “Price of Admission” series explores this issue).
High-income parents, those earning $100,000 or more, saved much more money than those earning less: almost $20,000, on average. But savers who earned less than $35,000 annually put 6% of their income away for college, a higher proportion than high-income parents, who saved 3%.
For those parents who aren’t saving for college, 53% say a major reason is that they can’t afford it. Another 18% cite that as a minor reason, while 13% say a lack of money plays no role in their college-savings decision. More than half of nonsavers say they’re not saving at least in part because they expect their children to receive scholarships and grants to cover college costs.
But that’s a risky calculation to make, as the average amount of funding U.S. undergraduates got from grants and scholarships fell 15% during the last academic year. On average, students received $6,077 in grants and scholarships in the 2011-2012 academic year, down from $7,124 a year earlier, according to a July Sallie Mae study.
Unsurprisingly, 70% of parents with income below $35,000 say a lack of money comprises at least part of the reason why they’re not saving for college. But what is a shock is that the share of families who earn between $35,000 and $100,000 and say they can’t afford to save is even higher, at 74%. (Among families earning $100,000 or more, 72% of respondents cite money — or lack thereof — as a reason for not saving.)
source: wsj
Obama-endorsed Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt sets Mubarak retrial for April 13
March 3, 2013
Egypt's Appeals court has set April 13 as the date for a retrial of former president Hosni Mubarak, his interior minister and aides in the case of ordering the killing of protesters, MENA state news agency reported on Sunday.
Mubarak is in a military hospital. In January a Cairo court granted him the retrial after he was jailed for life over the killing of protesters by security forces trying to quell the uprising against him.
REUTERS
Mubarak is in a military hospital. In January a Cairo court granted him the retrial after he was jailed for life over the killing of protesters by security forces trying to quell the uprising against him.
REUTERS
Black Chamber of Commerce CEO: Obama is tyrannical 'borderline communist'
March 3, 2013
by Jim Hoft
The Gateway Pundit:
Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry C. Alford slammed “borderline communist” Barack Obama in an interview this week.
“He’s tyrranical, don’t you think?"
Black Chamber of Commerce CEO on Obama: ‘I had hopes because he was black, shame on me’
National Black Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Harry C. Alford told The Daily Caller that he “ignored” President Obama’s “spread the wealth” comment in 2008 and “had hopes” for him “because he was black.”
*Note: Commenter "RedBeard" reminds us of Alford's previously views of the dear dictator:
While I welcome Alford's comments and current awareness, I have a few problems.
1. Alford admits to ignoring Obama's "spread the wealth" comment. Why? The rest of recognized a putrid left-wing agenda promise when we heard it.
2. Alford voted for Obama in 2008, in order to "represent his people." Which people? The people of the U.S., or a narrow demographic based solely upon race?
3. Alford heads an organization that excludes whites. Isn't that what we should call racism?
In any case, it really is gratifying to see Alford speaking out, even if it's years too late.
by Jim Hoft
The Gateway Pundit:
Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry C. Alford slammed “borderline communist” Barack Obama in an interview this week.
“He’s tyrranical, don’t you think?"
Black Chamber of Commerce CEO on Obama: ‘I had hopes because he was black, shame on me’
National Black Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Harry C. Alford told The Daily Caller that he “ignored” President Obama’s “spread the wealth” comment in 2008 and “had hopes” for him “because he was black.”
*Note: Commenter "RedBeard" reminds us of Alford's previously views of the dear dictator:
While I welcome Alford's comments and current awareness, I have a few problems.
1. Alford admits to ignoring Obama's "spread the wealth" comment. Why? The rest of recognized a putrid left-wing agenda promise when we heard it.
2. Alford voted for Obama in 2008, in order to "represent his people." Which people? The people of the U.S., or a narrow demographic based solely upon race?
3. Alford heads an organization that excludes whites. Isn't that what we should call racism?
In any case, it really is gratifying to see Alford speaking out, even if it's years too late.
A White House under siege by reality
March 3, 2013
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
“Sequestration,” which sounds like an impolite stomach ailment that almost nobody can spell and few understand, now gets really interesting. With the sequestration deadline having passed, the White House is under siege by reality.
President Obama and his liege men have been crying from the rooftops for weeks that if he doesn’t get to further plunder taxpayer pockets, airplanes will fall from the sky, classrooms will empty, fire and brimstone will ruin every hearth because there won’t be anybody at the firehouse to answer the telephone, crooks and criminals will roam the land doing all manner of evil because the cops will be on furlough, babies will cry in vain for milk, men will join bread lines like we haven’t seen since the 1930s and women will weep tears of bitter reproach, tsunamis will rise from the river, bayou and creek, locusts will devour failing crops, and we’ll all be dead by the Fourth of July (if not Memorial Day). Woe is definitely us.
With Judgment Day at hand, the only thing left for the White House to do is to kill, or at least grievously wound, as many bearers of bad news as the president’s men can find. Blaming the press is always popular, because the press deserves whatever abuse it gets. When the president read in The Washington Post, of all places, that he was being called out by the most famous reporter in the land for his fibs and stretchers (a president would never actually tell a lie) about who should be blamed for sequestration hysteria, he could hardly believe it. There, before his very own eyes and in black and white, Bob Woodward was citing chapter and verse with the proof that the sequester originated under Barack Obama’s roof. Truth will out, but it’s not supposed to out in the president’s own house.
This destroyed Mr. Obama’s No. 1 talking point, that the sequester is a Republican ploy. This could not stand. Soon Bob Woodward got a blistering telephone call from an enraged Obama aide, followed by an email from “a very senior person,” telling him that he would “regret doing this.” He didn’t say who the “very senior person” was, being polite and eager to protect an undeserving source, but the aide was later identified as Gene Sperling, the director of the National Economic Council.
Reporters, even famous reporters, get into tiffs with official sources all the time; it comes with the territory. But threats like this come from unusual territory. A president would never dispatch someone to Cleveland to hire a hit man, nor even call in a drone, but he can make good on such threats in harsh and anonymous ways. If he could do it to the most famous reporter and editor at one of the most famous newspapers, he could do it at will to anyone else.
Richard Nixon kept an “enemies list,” and it was taken as the threat the White House meant it to be. Everyone immediately thinks of an IRS audit. John F. Kennedy once canceled a subscription to the late New York Herald-Tribune, which was a nominally Republican newspaper, because he didn’t like something he read there. For several days there was quite a row in all the newspapers.
The Obama White House gets particularly exercised by grunions of the cult who dare question or criticize the messiah from Chicago. When Lanny Davis, a senior aide to President Clinton and a loyal Democrat, summoned the courage to needle the Obama administration early on in a column in The Washington Times, the newspaper got a call suggesting that it should print no more op-ed contributions from Mr. Davis if it knew what was good for him, and it. The Times told the White House, as any serious newspaper would, that the newspaper and not the White House, any White House, decides when and what to print.
Most presidents come with thin skins, and Mr. Obama’s skin is only thinner than most. He seems to take his authority as messiah as seriously as the members of the cult do. The reporters and correspondents who trail obediently in his wake are mostly too young to remember JFK, but they yearn for the restoration of Camelot, even a cheap cut-rate copy of the original.
Unless he can make the earth move, the Mississippi run backwards and call down thunderbolts from a darkling sky, the president will be exposed over the next few days, weeks and maybe months as the president who cried “wolf” — and the wolf stayed home. It should be a good show. The rest of us are entitled to enjoy it. We’re paying for it.
• Source: Wesley Pruden - The Washington Times
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
President Obama and his liege men have been crying from the rooftops for weeks that if he doesn’t get to further plunder taxpayer pockets, airplanes will fall from the sky, classrooms will empty, fire and brimstone will ruin every hearth because there won’t be anybody at the firehouse to answer the telephone, crooks and criminals will roam the land doing all manner of evil because the cops will be on furlough, babies will cry in vain for milk, men will join bread lines like we haven’t seen since the 1930s and women will weep tears of bitter reproach, tsunamis will rise from the river, bayou and creek, locusts will devour failing crops, and we’ll all be dead by the Fourth of July (if not Memorial Day). Woe is definitely us.
With Judgment Day at hand, the only thing left for the White House to do is to kill, or at least grievously wound, as many bearers of bad news as the president’s men can find. Blaming the press is always popular, because the press deserves whatever abuse it gets. When the president read in The Washington Post, of all places, that he was being called out by the most famous reporter in the land for his fibs and stretchers (a president would never actually tell a lie) about who should be blamed for sequestration hysteria, he could hardly believe it. There, before his very own eyes and in black and white, Bob Woodward was citing chapter and verse with the proof that the sequester originated under Barack Obama’s roof. Truth will out, but it’s not supposed to out in the president’s own house.
This destroyed Mr. Obama’s No. 1 talking point, that the sequester is a Republican ploy. This could not stand. Soon Bob Woodward got a blistering telephone call from an enraged Obama aide, followed by an email from “a very senior person,” telling him that he would “regret doing this.” He didn’t say who the “very senior person” was, being polite and eager to protect an undeserving source, but the aide was later identified as Gene Sperling, the director of the National Economic Council.
Reporters, even famous reporters, get into tiffs with official sources all the time; it comes with the territory. But threats like this come from unusual territory. A president would never dispatch someone to Cleveland to hire a hit man, nor even call in a drone, but he can make good on such threats in harsh and anonymous ways. If he could do it to the most famous reporter and editor at one of the most famous newspapers, he could do it at will to anyone else.
Richard Nixon kept an “enemies list,” and it was taken as the threat the White House meant it to be. Everyone immediately thinks of an IRS audit. John F. Kennedy once canceled a subscription to the late New York Herald-Tribune, which was a nominally Republican newspaper, because he didn’t like something he read there. For several days there was quite a row in all the newspapers.
The Obama White House gets particularly exercised by grunions of the cult who dare question or criticize the messiah from Chicago. When Lanny Davis, a senior aide to President Clinton and a loyal Democrat, summoned the courage to needle the Obama administration early on in a column in The Washington Times, the newspaper got a call suggesting that it should print no more op-ed contributions from Mr. Davis if it knew what was good for him, and it. The Times told the White House, as any serious newspaper would, that the newspaper and not the White House, any White House, decides when and what to print.
Most presidents come with thin skins, and Mr. Obama’s skin is only thinner than most. He seems to take his authority as messiah as seriously as the members of the cult do. The reporters and correspondents who trail obediently in his wake are mostly too young to remember JFK, but they yearn for the restoration of Camelot, even a cheap cut-rate copy of the original.
Unless he can make the earth move, the Mississippi run backwards and call down thunderbolts from a darkling sky, the president will be exposed over the next few days, weeks and maybe months as the president who cried “wolf” — and the wolf stayed home. It should be a good show. The rest of us are entitled to enjoy it. We’re paying for it.
• Source: Wesley Pruden - The Washington Times
Obama fundraiser pleads guilty to swindling million
March 3, 2013
Claudio Osorio, the former globe-trotting executive who had headed a Fortune 500 company, faces up to 30 years in prison after pleading guilty to stealing millions of dollars from investors in his ill-fated venture to build low-cost housing in Haiti and other developing countries.
Osorio, a Venezuelan native who once held fund-raisers for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other political heavyweights at his Star Island home, pleaded guilty Thursday to three conspiracy offenses involving wire fraud and money laundering.
The two fraud convictions carry up to 20 years and the laundering conviction up to 10 years. But Osorio, 54, is expected to be imprisoned for 12 or more years under federal sentencing guidelines at a hearing set for May 9.
He has agreed to cooperate with the U.S. attorney’s office in the continuing case against his defunct company’s former chief financial officer — and possibly others — and will be required to pay restitution of between $20 million and $50 million to victims. But very little of that money has been recovered so far.
FBI agents arrested Osorio in December after some of his investors accused the high-flying entrepreneur of using his Miami Beach-based company, Innovida Holdings, to fleece $50 million from them and the U.S. government. Among the investors: former Miami Heat star Alonzo Mourning. Osorio stole the money to prop up his Star Island lifestyle, and maintain resort homes in Switzerland and Telluride, Colo., according to authorities.
“I feel relieved, honestly, that a fraudster like Claudio Osorio has finally been brought to justice, and that he won’t be able to ruin any more people’s lives,” said Miami businessman Chris Korge, who invested $4 million in Innovida, including $3 million borrowed from his close friend, Miami-Dade lobbyist and businessman Rodney Barreto. “He has ruined a lot of people’s lives.”
Korge, a major Democratic fundraiser who came to know Osorio and his wife during the Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns, was not the only investor dazzled by the charismatic entrepreneur.
Others saw potential profits in Osorio’s company, including NBA star Carlos Boozer, a Tanzanian businessman, a group of United Arab Emirates investors, and a former Star Island neighbor.
Previously, Osorio had headed a computer distribution business in Miami that was listed on the Fortune 500 before it filed for bankruptcy in 2000. Despite the failure of CHS Electronics, several investors said they trusted Osorio with their money in his Innovida start-up because he sold them on the likelihood of its success.
Although Innovida had a manufacturing facility in North Miami-Dade, and prominent board members including former Gov. Jeb Bush and Miami condo king Jorge Perez, the company never gained traction.
Osorio was convicted of using Innovida, which claimed to produce high-tech building panels for low-cost housing, to deceive investors and line his pockets.
Osorio, represented by attorney Humberto Dominguez, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale federal court. As part of his plea, the U.S. attorney’s office agreed to drop 19 other charges.
In court, Osorio admitted he “solicited and recruited investors by making materially false representations and concealing and omitting material facts regarding ... the profitability of the company, the rates of return on investment funds, the use of investors’ funds and the existence of a pending lucrative contract with a third-party entity,” according to a statement issued by the U.S. attorney’s office.
Dimitrouleas took over the case this week from U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga, who was supposed to hear Osorio’s change of plea in Miami on Friday. Altonaga recused herself from the case.
As Osorio awaits sentencing, he will be held without bond and remain at the Miami Federal Detention Center.
In 2011, a bankruptcy judge ordered Osorio to sell the one major asset that belonged to him and his wife, Amarilis. The couple auctioned their one-acre, two-story Star Island home with infinity pool for $12.7 million.
The sale of the heavily mortgaged property generated millions for banks and other lenders, and some money for his burned investors.
Osorio was allowed to keep at least $500,000 of the sales proceeds. Last July, he and his wife paid nearly $924,000 for a four-bedroom, five-bathroom condominium in Aventura, but now federal prosecutors have moved to seize the property as part of the criminal case.
According to an indictment, Osorio conspired to swindle $40 million from 10 investors and an additional $10 million from a federal government program between 2006 and 2011. The government grant was for building 500 homes in Haiti after its devastating earthquake in January 2010 — a project that Osorio touted to promote his company, but which never broke ground.
Osorio’s co-defendant, Craig S. Toll, 64, of Pembroke Pines, has pleaded not guilty. He was the CFO for Innovida.
Toll’s attorney, Richard Sharpstein, said his client should not have been named in the indictment with Osorio because he committed no wrongdoing. Sharpstein said Toll was unaware of Osorio’s fraudulent financial and banking activities.
Osorio moved investors’ money to off-shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, which the bankruptcy trustee of his failed company said he could not recover because the money was either spent on Osorio’s extravagant lifestyle or moved to other secret accounts overseas.
Osorio’s indictment referred to an “unindicted co-conspirator” who personally benefited from his business scam. Although not identified by name, the co-conspirator is his wife, according to sources familiar with the case.
The wife, Amarilis, won’t be charged as part of Osorio’s plea deal, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lois Foster-Steers said in court Thursday.
Signs of her husband’s downfall emerged in January 2011, when the Swiss government obtained the Justice Department’s assistance to investigate possible criminal charges against Osorio in Switzerland.
Authorities there alleged Osorio and others fraudulently obtained $220 million in loans from Swiss banks in the late 1990s by lying about the soundness of his previous venture, CHS.
It was a former Fortune 500 distributor of computers worldwide that filed for bankruptcy in 2000, and settled a securities fraud case with a class of shareholders the following year.
The status of the Swiss investigation is unclear.
source
Osorio, a Venezuelan native who once held fund-raisers for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other political heavyweights at his Star Island home, pleaded guilty Thursday to three conspiracy offenses involving wire fraud and money laundering.
The two fraud convictions carry up to 20 years and the laundering conviction up to 10 years. But Osorio, 54, is expected to be imprisoned for 12 or more years under federal sentencing guidelines at a hearing set for May 9.
He has agreed to cooperate with the U.S. attorney’s office in the continuing case against his defunct company’s former chief financial officer — and possibly others — and will be required to pay restitution of between $20 million and $50 million to victims. But very little of that money has been recovered so far.
FBI agents arrested Osorio in December after some of his investors accused the high-flying entrepreneur of using his Miami Beach-based company, Innovida Holdings, to fleece $50 million from them and the U.S. government. Among the investors: former Miami Heat star Alonzo Mourning. Osorio stole the money to prop up his Star Island lifestyle, and maintain resort homes in Switzerland and Telluride, Colo., according to authorities.
“I feel relieved, honestly, that a fraudster like Claudio Osorio has finally been brought to justice, and that he won’t be able to ruin any more people’s lives,” said Miami businessman Chris Korge, who invested $4 million in Innovida, including $3 million borrowed from his close friend, Miami-Dade lobbyist and businessman Rodney Barreto. “He has ruined a lot of people’s lives.”
Korge, a major Democratic fundraiser who came to know Osorio and his wife during the Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns, was not the only investor dazzled by the charismatic entrepreneur.
Others saw potential profits in Osorio’s company, including NBA star Carlos Boozer, a Tanzanian businessman, a group of United Arab Emirates investors, and a former Star Island neighbor.
Previously, Osorio had headed a computer distribution business in Miami that was listed on the Fortune 500 before it filed for bankruptcy in 2000. Despite the failure of CHS Electronics, several investors said they trusted Osorio with their money in his Innovida start-up because he sold them on the likelihood of its success.
Although Innovida had a manufacturing facility in North Miami-Dade, and prominent board members including former Gov. Jeb Bush and Miami condo king Jorge Perez, the company never gained traction.
Osorio was convicted of using Innovida, which claimed to produce high-tech building panels for low-cost housing, to deceive investors and line his pockets.
Osorio, represented by attorney Humberto Dominguez, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale federal court. As part of his plea, the U.S. attorney’s office agreed to drop 19 other charges.
In court, Osorio admitted he “solicited and recruited investors by making materially false representations and concealing and omitting material facts regarding ... the profitability of the company, the rates of return on investment funds, the use of investors’ funds and the existence of a pending lucrative contract with a third-party entity,” according to a statement issued by the U.S. attorney’s office.
Dimitrouleas took over the case this week from U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga, who was supposed to hear Osorio’s change of plea in Miami on Friday. Altonaga recused herself from the case.
As Osorio awaits sentencing, he will be held without bond and remain at the Miami Federal Detention Center.
In 2011, a bankruptcy judge ordered Osorio to sell the one major asset that belonged to him and his wife, Amarilis. The couple auctioned their one-acre, two-story Star Island home with infinity pool for $12.7 million.
The sale of the heavily mortgaged property generated millions for banks and other lenders, and some money for his burned investors.
Osorio was allowed to keep at least $500,000 of the sales proceeds. Last July, he and his wife paid nearly $924,000 for a four-bedroom, five-bathroom condominium in Aventura, but now federal prosecutors have moved to seize the property as part of the criminal case.
According to an indictment, Osorio conspired to swindle $40 million from 10 investors and an additional $10 million from a federal government program between 2006 and 2011. The government grant was for building 500 homes in Haiti after its devastating earthquake in January 2010 — a project that Osorio touted to promote his company, but which never broke ground.
Osorio’s co-defendant, Craig S. Toll, 64, of Pembroke Pines, has pleaded not guilty. He was the CFO for Innovida.
Toll’s attorney, Richard Sharpstein, said his client should not have been named in the indictment with Osorio because he committed no wrongdoing. Sharpstein said Toll was unaware of Osorio’s fraudulent financial and banking activities.
Osorio moved investors’ money to off-shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, which the bankruptcy trustee of his failed company said he could not recover because the money was either spent on Osorio’s extravagant lifestyle or moved to other secret accounts overseas.
Osorio’s indictment referred to an “unindicted co-conspirator” who personally benefited from his business scam. Although not identified by name, the co-conspirator is his wife, according to sources familiar with the case.
The wife, Amarilis, won’t be charged as part of Osorio’s plea deal, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lois Foster-Steers said in court Thursday.
Signs of her husband’s downfall emerged in January 2011, when the Swiss government obtained the Justice Department’s assistance to investigate possible criminal charges against Osorio in Switzerland.
Authorities there alleged Osorio and others fraudulently obtained $220 million in loans from Swiss banks in the late 1990s by lying about the soundness of his previous venture, CHS.
It was a former Fortune 500 distributor of computers worldwide that filed for bankruptcy in 2000, and settled a securities fraud case with a class of shareholders the following year.
The status of the Swiss investigation is unclear.
source
7-year-old suspended for biting Pop Tart into gun shape
March 3, 2013
Updated: Children at Park Elementary School went home with a letter today explaining there was a disruption in school. Seven year old Josh Welch, and his father, say the disruption lead to a two day suspension for the second grader in Brooklyn Park.
Academics are hard for Josh, who suffers from ADHD, but he excels in art class. It is Josh's own creativity that may have gotten him into trouble.
At Park Elementary school, Josh was enjoying his breakfast pastry when he decided to try and shape it into a mountain.
Josh said, "It was already a rectangle and I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top and it kinda looked like a gun but it wasn't."
Josh takes full responsibly for trying to shape his breakfast pastry, but admits it was in innocent fun. He told FOX45, "All I was trying to do was turn it into a mountain but, it didn't look like a mountain really and it turned out to be a gun kinda."
When his teacher saw the strawberry tart he knew he was in trouble, he recalls, "She was pretty mad…and I think I was in big trouble."
Josh's dad received a phone call from the school saying that Josh has been suspended for two days because he took his breakfast pastry and fashioned it into a gun. Josh's dad was astounded to learn the school chose such a harsh punishment, even after no one was hurt.
Late Friday afternoon a letter went home with students explaining the incident saying, "A student used food to make an inappropriate gesture."
But Josh's dad is not happy saying, "I would almost call it insanity. I mean with all the potential issues that could be dealt with at school, real threats, bullies, whatever the real issue is, it's a pastry.., Ya know?"
Josh just wishes he could go back to class, but maintains a good sense of humor through the whole debacle saying, "I didn't get to eat all my breakfast, so, really I am still hungry."
source
Academics are hard for Josh, who suffers from ADHD, but he excels in art class. It is Josh's own creativity that may have gotten him into trouble.
At Park Elementary school, Josh was enjoying his breakfast pastry when he decided to try and shape it into a mountain.
Josh said, "It was already a rectangle and I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top and it kinda looked like a gun but it wasn't."
Josh takes full responsibly for trying to shape his breakfast pastry, but admits it was in innocent fun. He told FOX45, "All I was trying to do was turn it into a mountain but, it didn't look like a mountain really and it turned out to be a gun kinda."
When his teacher saw the strawberry tart he knew he was in trouble, he recalls, "She was pretty mad…and I think I was in big trouble."
Josh's dad received a phone call from the school saying that Josh has been suspended for two days because he took his breakfast pastry and fashioned it into a gun. Josh's dad was astounded to learn the school chose such a harsh punishment, even after no one was hurt.
Late Friday afternoon a letter went home with students explaining the incident saying, "A student used food to make an inappropriate gesture."
But Josh's dad is not happy saying, "I would almost call it insanity. I mean with all the potential issues that could be dealt with at school, real threats, bullies, whatever the real issue is, it's a pastry.., Ya know?"
Josh just wishes he could go back to class, but maintains a good sense of humor through the whole debacle saying, "I didn't get to eat all my breakfast, so, really I am still hungry."
source
High School Student Disarms Gunman…Gets Suspended?
March 3, 2013
A Florida high school student wrestled a loaded gun away from another teen on the bus ride home this week and was slapped with a suspension in return.
The 16-year-old Cypress Lake High student in Fort Myers, Fla. told WFTX-TV there was “no doubt” he saved a life after grappling for the loaded .22 caliber revolver being aimed point-blank at another student on Tuesday.
“I think he was really going to shoot him right then and there,” said the suspended student, not identified by WFTX because of safety concerns. “Not taking no pity.”
The student said the suspect, a football player, threatened to shoot a teammate because he had been arguing with his friend.
Authorities confirmed to WFTX the weapon was indeed loaded, and the arrest report stated the suspect, identified by WVZN-TV as Quadryle Davis, was “pointing the gun directly” at the other student and “threatening to shoot him.”
That’s when, the teen told the station, he and two others tackled the suspect and wrestled the gun away. The next day, all three were suspended.
“How they going to suspend me for doing the right thing?” he asked.
The school’s referral slip said he was given an “emergency suspension” for being involved in an “incident” with a weapon. Lee County School District spokesman Alberto Rodriguez said in a statement that “If there is a potentially dangerous situation, Florida law allows the principal to suspend a student immediately pending a hearing.”
ABC-7.com WZVN News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral
“Those kids had to fight for their lives,” the mother of the suspended teen said. “All the kids that was involved in this they should have a pat on their backs because they did the right thing to save someone from burying their child.”
The suspended teen is allowed to go back to school Monday.
Meanwhile, the student accused of pointing the weapon has been charged only with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon “without intent” to kill.
The sheriff’s office said the investigation is ongoing and that the charges are “based on our findings at this time.”
source: The Blaze
 |
| Image source: WFTX-TV |
The 16-year-old Cypress Lake High student in Fort Myers, Fla. told WFTX-TV there was “no doubt” he saved a life after grappling for the loaded .22 caliber revolver being aimed point-blank at another student on Tuesday.
“I think he was really going to shoot him right then and there,” said the suspended student, not identified by WFTX because of safety concerns. “Not taking no pity.”
The student said the suspect, a football player, threatened to shoot a teammate because he had been arguing with his friend.
Authorities confirmed to WFTX the weapon was indeed loaded, and the arrest report stated the suspect, identified by WVZN-TV as Quadryle Davis, was “pointing the gun directly” at the other student and “threatening to shoot him.”
That’s when, the teen told the station, he and two others tackled the suspect and wrestled the gun away. The next day, all three were suspended.
“How they going to suspend me for doing the right thing?” he asked.
The school’s referral slip said he was given an “emergency suspension” for being involved in an “incident” with a weapon. Lee County School District spokesman Alberto Rodriguez said in a statement that “If there is a potentially dangerous situation, Florida law allows the principal to suspend a student immediately pending a hearing.”
ABC-7.com WZVN News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral
“Those kids had to fight for their lives,” the mother of the suspended teen said. “All the kids that was involved in this they should have a pat on their backs because they did the right thing to save someone from burying their child.”
The suspended teen is allowed to go back to school Monday.
Meanwhile, the student accused of pointing the weapon has been charged only with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon “without intent” to kill.
The sheriff’s office said the investigation is ongoing and that the charges are “based on our findings at this time.”
source: The Blaze
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)