If we only search people who "look like terrorists," al-Qaeda will send people who don't fit the profile. It's no accident that most of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; at the time, it was easier for Saudi nationals to get U.S. visas than it was for citizens of other Arab countries. If terrorists are clever enough to hide powerful explosives in ink cartridges, then eventually they'll find a suicide bomber who looks just like you, me or Granny.
The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.
In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.
“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.
You answered 30 out of 33 correctly — 90.91 %
Average score for this quiz during October: 73.7%
Seventy-one percent of Americans failed this basic test. The overall average score was only 49%, with college graduates also failing at 57%.
The bookstore gave the president a copy of “Freedom,” a new novel by Jonathan Franzen about a dysfunctional family in America. This is apt, since Obama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America — a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age.[emphasis: mine]
The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown, with the right spreading fear and disinformation that is amplified by the poisonous echo chamber that is the modern media environment.
If we’re not the ones we’ve been waiting for, who are we?
I am happy to be the first to provide an answer to this question. We are the chumps. We are the chumps that believe that appeasement is a substitute for defense. We are the chumps who believe that, while a for a family to attempt to spend its way out of poverty is idiocy, it is sound policy for a nation to do so. We are the chumps that believe that by turning the health care system over to the Federal Government we will simultaneously cut costs and improve quality. We are the chumps that believe that they way to ensure that African American children close the education gap with their white peers is to make sure that they are denied school choice and access to charter schools. We are the chumps who believe that if we smash the existing energy industry we will all get high paying government jobs as wind-mill oilers or solar cell squeegee boys. We are the chumps that believe that we can alleviate poverty by raising the minimum wage. We are the chumps who appreciate being forced to buy dangerous little lawnmower-cars by people who fly around in corporate jets to give speeches about our excessive use of energy.
We are a nation of chumps. Us chumps elected socialist Democrats in both houses of Congress and the White House. Us chumps(and our grand children) bought a multi-trillion dollar ticket to the most expensive three ring circus ever imagined. We chumps may have destroyed the most free and the most prosperous society in the history of mankind. At least we will ave earned a place in the history books
TORONTO (AP) — Black-clad demonstrators broke off from a peaceful protest and torched a police cruiser in the financial district and smashed windows in a shopping district after veering off from the planned protest route.
A group, dressed all in black, smashed the windows of a bank, a coffee shop and some stores before heading to an area where Canada's largest banks are headquarted, smashing restaurant and shop windows there.
The roving band of protesters in black balaclavas then turned north and broke shop windows for blocks with baseball bats and hammers. They also broke windows at police headquarters.
Police with shields and clubs earlier pushed back a small group of protesters who tried to head south toward the security fence around the site of the G-20 summit. Some demonstrators hurled bottles at police.
In the end, a staggering amount of money is spent on the manpower that maintains order while these demonstrators want to challenge it and I still don’t get the point. Most of the interviews I’ve done arrive at the goal of “Raising Awareness.” But in the attempt to raise awareness of everything, you communicate nothing.
Toronto Police Sgt. Tim Burrows said authorities are quite pleased that the protests have been tame so far compared to what they've seen at previous summits. Hundreds of protesters moved through Toronto's streets Friday, but police in riot gear blocked them from getting near the summit security zone downtown.
Burrows said police will be watching splinter groups within the protest who he said have promised violence.
"From what we've seen in previous summits we're quite happy with what our protesters are bringing to the table with the exception of a few," Burrows said before Saturday's march.
"They've protested peacefully. There have been a few people that have decided that they wanted to step out of line and test our response and they found themselves where they should be."
The march, sponsored by labor unions and dubbed family friendly, was the largest demonstration planned during the weekend summits.
California legislators and the governor should carry a copy of the state constitution in their pockets and refer to it when writing and signing bills. It’s a useful guide, laying out what the people have a right to do and what the government shall not do. For example, Article I, Section 31 reads in part:
“The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Thirteen years ago, 54 percent of voters passed Proposition 209, which added this language to the state’s constitution. But politicians act as though it doesn’t exist. Last October, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who swore to uphold the constitution, signed into law a bill that directs state departments to award government contracts to the lowest responsible bidder subcontracting 15 percent of the work to minority-owned businesses and five percent to female-owned businesses. The contractor who fails to do so will be rejected, even if he’s the lowest bidder.
The latest attempt to circumvent the law came yesterday, as the California Assembly passed a bill that would allow the (taxpayer-supported) University of California and California State University systems to consider skin color in admissions.
Even if racial preferences accomplished what social engineers and the professional civil rights industry hoped, they are discriminatory. Preferring one individual over another based on race means the other individual is passed over based on race. Has anyone read the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act lately?
As I’ve said so many times, I could recite it while comatose, the civil rights movement’s goal was to dismantle government-sanctioned and government-mandated racial discrimination. Blacks fought to be treated fairly as individuals protected by law, and not judged based on group membership. How things got turned around, where some blacks started demanding special treatment, is another topic for another post.
What is your Path?-
Jihad
What is your most lofty goal?-
Death for the sake of Allah
CHUCK TODD: The curriculum in the Texas public schools just got a major rewrite. Critics say the new, more conservative curriculum is revising history and the revised Texas textbooks could soon be seen, actually, in classrooms all over the country. Evan Smith is the CEO and editor-in-chief of the Texas Tribune. So, I have to ask, Texas is not the largest state in the union. Last time I checked, it was California. So, why is it that what Texas does with its textbooks gets, has a better chance of getting replicated in other schools across the country than what California does?[emph-mine]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/05/25/msnbcs-chuck-todd-knocks-texas-conservatives-new-history-textbooks-e#ixzz0oyBi8BUa
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands.
If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
Police Chief Thomas Manger of Montgomery County, Md., in suburban Washington said he doesn't have the resources or the desire to enforce federal immigration violations by people who aren't disrupting the community.
"If they're not committing a crime here, frankly, I'm not sure how it enhances public safety to target those people for removal," he said.
On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the latest challenge to the law in federal court on behalf of labor unions and others.
Tucson police officer Martin Escobar also filed a lawsuit, arguing there's no "race-neutral" criteria for him to suspect that someone's in the country illegally. Some say it would be impossible to enforce without relying on indicators such as skin color, clothing and accent.
They worry Hispanic crime victims will be too scared to call for help, or eyewitnesses will refuse to cooperate in murder investigations.
Some of the 31 American cities are Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine. These cities have adopted "sanctuary" ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status.
The cactus in the photo at right planted along the Arizona border with California gives a pretty good indication of the reaction of that state to the boycott directed at them by the Los Angeles city council over the new immigration law. However, what is the opinion of folks in California? If a Los Angeles Times poll showed overwhelming support for the boycott, do you not think this would be front page news? Well, the results were overwhelming...97.6% of the respondents to this L.A. Times poll were opposed to the boycott of Arizona. The poll question: "Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona?" Here are the results:
Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 2.1% (378 votes)
Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 0.4% (64 votes)
No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4.2% (771 votes)
No. The city should mind its own business. 93.4% (17,030 votes)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2010/05/14/la-times-downplays-overwhelming-result-own-online-poll-arizona-boycott#ixzz0o1cUeZFt
WASHINGTON – The initial blush of President Barack Obama's health care triumph immediately gives way to a sober political reality — he must sell the landmark legislation to an angry and unpredictable electorate, still reeling from the recession.
Voters may not buy it.
"We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people," the president said late Sunday, beginning his sales pitch from the White House one hour after Congress passed the sweeping measure.
Voters are furious. They hate Washington. They also detest incumbents. They're concerned most about the economy. And unemployment that's hovering near 10 percent. They're also split over whether Obama's health plan is good for a nation with enormous budget deficits and climbing debt.
How those variables play out is anyone's guess.
"It will end up being the smart thing to do politically because I believe that good policy is good politics," the president said Saturday at the Capitol.
Ahead of the vote, a Gallup poll showed more Americans believe the measure will make things worse rather than better for the country as a whole and for them personally. And most polls show most people don't like the plan although some surveys showed Americans giving high marks to individual elements.
Throughout the yearlong debate, the GOP derided the bill as "socialized medicine" and warned that it would be devastating. But Republicans may find themselves looking sheepish given that the status quo won't change for most people for years.
California has a new endangered species on its hands in the San Joaquin Valley—farmers. Thanks to environmental regulations designed to protect the likes of the three-inch long delta smelt, one of America's premier agricultural regions is suffering in a drought made worse by federal regulations.
The state's water emergency is unfolding thanks to the latest mishandling of the Endangered Species Act. Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channelled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched.
For this, Californians can thank the usual environmental suspects, er, lawyers. Last year's government ruling was the result of a 2006 lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other outfits objecting to increased water pumping in the smelt vicinity. In June, things got even dustier when the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that local salmon and steelhead also needed to be defended from the valley's water pumps. Those additional restrictions will begin to effect pumping operations next year.
The result has already been devastating for the state's farm economy. In the inland areas affected by the court-ordered water restrictions, the jobless rate has hit 14.3%, with some farming towns like Mendota seeing unemployment numbers near 40%. Statewide, the rate reached 11.6% in July, higher than it has been in 30 years. In August, 50 mayors from the San Joaquin Valley signed a letter asking President Obama to observe the impact of the draconian water rules firsthand.
Politics: The water spigots are back on, at least temporarily, in California's Central Valley. Turned off to protect a tiny fish, they happen to be in the districts of two congressmen "undecided" on health care reform.
One could chalk it up to good fortune or just good constituent service. But in the middle of a contentious health care debate marked by Cornhusker Kickbacks and Louisiana Purchases, we may be forgiven if we find an announcement by the Department of the Interior regarding California's water supply a tad too coincidental.
On Tuesday, the Department of the Interior announced it was increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations for local agriculture and jobs. The timing adds to our suspicions.
According to the Interior announcement, "Typically (the Bureau of) Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators (Diane) Feinstein and (Barbara) Boxer, and Congressmen (Jim) Costa and (Dennis) Cardoza."
Blue Dog Democrats Costa, who represents California's 20th Congressional District (Fresno), and Cardoza, who represents the 18th (Stockton to Modesto), are both listed as "undecided" in the upcoming vote on health care reform, whether it be on the Senate bill itself or the "deem and pass" resolution known as the Slaughter rule, after Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter.
The 2-inch-long delta smelt, a fish destined for the Endangered Species list, plugs the drains releasing water to the farmlands. So to protect it, environmentalists filed lawsuits and the decision was made to restrict the water flow and safeguard the smelt, even if that meant turning some of America's best farmland into the functional equivalent of Death Valley.
Instead, the correct answer for every Republican faced with the OUTRAGE!!!!111!!! of leftist plant, member of the Fourth Estate, or Dhimicratic Lawmaker who employs the “YOU were in control for 8 years and did NOTHING!!!11!!!” meme is to look them in the eye, and say calmly, but firmly “You’re right. And do you know why? *pause, to make sure you have their attention* Because it isn’t for the FEDERAL government to address. The question that YOU should be asking yourself Mr. SEIU protester/Olbermann/Congressman Grayson is why you hate the Constitution, think you know better than the men who wrote it, or the wisdom of the voters and the legislators of your own home states? You keep trying to take power that doesn’t belong to you, and despite the Civil War’s net effect of shifting the balance of power between the Federal Government and the individual states, the states still are sovereign entities, and it is up to them to address this issue if the people of their states believe there is a compelling need to do so. Massachusetts showed the way on this, and yet you still persist in a nearly delusional belief that the Tenth Amendment no longer applies, and that we are empowered to forever expand special welfare for some and continue to call it “general welfare” for all. It’s time Congress confined itself to things within the grant of power specifically made to it in the Constitution.”
WHOSE GOVERNMENT IS THIS, ANYWAY?
The career politicians and bureaucrats, along with the pundits of the left, are currently wailing and keening over what the depict as dangerous "antigovernment" sentiment at loose in the land, but they're way off base. Most people believe strongly in our form of government. We just don't like how it has been perverted and contorted out of shape over the past few decades.
Our dissatisfaction has two main, related causes.
First, government does too many things we don't want it to do. In fact, the general drift of government activism has been to do things that help small minorities and special interests at the expense of the majority.
Second, every time the government does anything, it ends up costing us too much money. The costs nearly always outweigh the benefits.
In other words, the people who pay for government are the people whom government seems least interested in serving. You could even say that we pay government to do things that damage us. But we're not angry at government--just at some of the bozos who run it.
"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," reads the fatwa issued Tuesday. "Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts."
The decision could complicate efforts to intensify screening of potential terrorists who are Muslim. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt in Detroit by a Muslim suspect from Nigeria, some have called for the use of body scanners at airports to find explosives and other dangerous materials carried by terrorists. Some airports are now in the process of buying and using the body scanners, which show in graphic detail the outlines of a person's body.
But Muslim groups say the scanners go against their religion. One option offered to passengers who don't want to use the scanners would be a pat down by a security guard. The Muslim groups are urging members to undergo those instead.
But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
DOUG VAN GORDER
Quincy
I AM a math teacher at Brockton High School, the site of a school shooting earlier this month.
Current school security procedures lock down school populations in the event of armed assault. Some advocate abandoning this practice as it holds everyone in place, allowing a shooter easily to find victims.
An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.
Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish. [emphasis: mine]
But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime
