politicsany1

U K editorial cartoons in re USA

2012-02-16T20:48:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich hits the reset button

2012-02-13T15:35:00.000-08:00

CPAC 2012: Newt Gingrich hits the reset button

By John Hayward, HUMAN EVENTS

No one can say they don’t know what Newt Gingrich will do after his inauguration. He’s got big plans, and he laid them all out in his CPAC address. He pledged to have a full list of his proposed executive orders and presidential findings published online by October, so that every voter will know exactly what they’re getting. He wants every Republican candidate to campaign with him on a pledge to hit the next Congress in a monster jam session that repeals the job-killing centralized corruption of ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley by the time he’s sworn in… and that’s just an appetizer.

Within two hours of plopping his Dilbert calendar and family photographs on the Resolute Desk, he’ll have signed an executive order to cashier every one of the Obama czars. Then he’ll sign one to approve the oil pipeline from Canada to Houston. By lunch, he’ll have moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. (I believe that under the Lean Six Sigma doctrine, it would be a good cost-saving measure to send all the unused office supplies from the fired Obama czars to outfit the new Jerusalem embassy.)

Next up would be re-instituting Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy, to forbid spending money to subsidize abortion overseas, even as “every act of religious bigotry by the Obama government” is swept away. By the time ex-President Obama “lands in Chicago,” he aims to have repealed “40 percent of Obama’s government.”

Then the munchkins of the Establishment would get to clutch their “fairness” and “revenue-neutral” teddy bears, suck their thumbs, and watch as President Gingrich proceeded to “create the most dynamic economy on the planet, and rebuild our manufacturing base” by eliminating the capital gains tax for all investment in the United States, allow 100 percent expensing of all new capital equipment, requiring mandatory business-led training for all who receive unemployment benefits, eliminating the job-killing Environmental Protection Agency, creating an Environmental Solutions Agency full of common-sense professionals instead of zero-growth anti-business radicals, creating a 21st-century Food and Drug Administration to unleash job-creating medical research, slashing the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent, actually collecting some taxes from General Electric, abolishing the immoral death tax, cutting everyone’s taxes with the flat tax plan Steve Forbes brought back from Hong Kong, balancing the federal budget by bringing the level of spending down to meet the level of revenue, stop taxing the American people to pay off Barack Obama’s credit card, using American energy to reduce fuel prices, increasing government revenue through economic growth, save $500 billion a year by replacing the 130-year-old incompetent and inefficient civil service system with a modern system based on ideas like Lean Six Sigma, abolishing the totally failed Department of Energy, subcontracting fraud-riddled Medicaid and Medicare administration to professional data administrators from credit card companies, taking the 10th Amendment seriously, strengthening Social Security, auditing the Federal Reserve, re-balancing the federal judiciary, and bouncing Fed chief Ben Bernanke out of Washington. Oh, and he won’t be bowing to any Saudi kings.

But that’s not all! Be sure to drop by www.newt.org, where you can bathe your mind in “an immense amount of material.”

No one else at CPAC had a speech as packed full of specifics as Newt Gingrich. He’s got a broad and deep agenda, and he can run through it from memory. He loves talking about every aspect of it. Whether you like his ideas or not, you can’t say he’s trying to hide any of them.

He is, however, a very bad golfer, by his own admission. Nobody’s perfect.

Gingrich is no fan of the “GOP establishment,” which loves to use the word “unrealistic” as a death curse to strike down ideas that challenge it. That’s the defining feature of the various Establishments trying to grind Gingrich beneath their heels, including the Washington Establishment, the Wall Street Establishment, and the Media Establishment. You don’t become a member of the Establishment by serving in Congress or working in Washington for a number of years. The essential rite of passage involves deciding all the bold ideas are “unrealistic,” and settling into an overstuffed armchair of humdrum Big Government “reality.”

They called the capital gains tax cuts, welfare reform, balanced budget, and job growth Gingrich stewarded during the Clinton years “unrealistic,” too. The Republican Establishment remains as it has been for half a century, preferring to “manage the decay,” because that’s easier than “changing the trajectory,” which involves “real fights, and a real willingness to roll up sleeves and actually take on the Left.” The Establishment sure knows how to muck up a primary, but they’re just not tough enough to beat the Left in a presidential campaign. Only the “Paycheck President” can defeat the “Food Stamp President.”

Some say Gingrich is paranoid and self-serving to talk this way, seeking to whitewash the less appealing elements of his Speakership by casting himself as a rebel against the flabby but powerful Establishment. Maybe so, but you’ve got to admit it’s not hard to think of Republicans who embrace the mind-set he’s describing.

According to Gingrich, we face now an hour similar to 1980, 1984, and 1994, when a bold conservatism presented with vigor can rally independent and moderate voters, who might otherwise be cowed by the Left’s moralistic commands to continue America’s downward spiral. A timid and leashed America that needs 23 years to cut through the bureaucracy, incompetence, and red tape to add a runway to an airport, where its forefathers needed only 3 years to smash the Axis, is hungry for energetic leadership to lead it back into a mostly private-sector “world that works.” It is “not a theory” that UPS and FedEx can track 28 million moving packages a day, while the federal government “cannot find 11 million illegal immigrants, even if they’re sitting still.”

Wit is a sign of confidence, and Gingrich got big laughs by suggesting illegal aliens could be tracked down by sending them a UPS package… then scored again by reminding the media (ahem, make that The Media Establishment) that he was engaging in hyperbole, and did not need to be fact-checked.

Gingrich was unsparing in his criticism of both the incumbent President’s policies and character. He said Obama has clearly demonstrated that he “cannot be trusted” to protect the religious liberty of Americans, and would “wage war on the Catholic Church” if given a second term. He accused Obama of being “anti-American energy” in his quest to saddle us with five-dollar gasoline at the pump. The Obama Administration’s foreign policy so badly “misunderstands the nature of reality” so badly that they’re inflicting deep defense cuts even as Americans are once again held hostage in a Middle Eastern nation, and Barack Obama completes his transformation into Jimmy Carter the Second. Gingrich, in contrast, would “tell us the truth about radical Islamists who are trying to kill us.”

Some relish proposal-packed speeches like this, while others say it’s too wonkish for “independent voter” consumption, and Gingrich is biting off more than any President could chew. Where Rick Santorum offered a focused table of contents for his proposed Administration, and Mitt Romney spent half of his speech talking about his biography, Gingrich is already working on the footnotes and appendix. But is his exhaustive list of proposals really too much for one Administration? Barack Obama hasn’t been shy about swinging executive power like a wrecking ball. Why can’t it be used constructively?

For Newt Gingrich, the historic election ahead will be a choice between those who cleave to the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Federalist Papers, versus Barack Obama and the Saul Alinsky radicals. He calls for hitting the “reset button” and rebuilding America, instead of managing its decay. None of the Establishments talk like that.

10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve

2012-02-11T16:03:00.000-08:00

10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve
by Michael

What would happen if the Federal Reserve was shut down permanently? That is a question that CNBC asked recently, but unfortunately most Americans don't really think about the Fed much. Most Americans are content with believing that the Federal Reserve is just another stuffy government agency that sets our interest rates and that is watching out for the best interests of the American people. But that is not the case at all. The truth is that the Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel that has been designed to systematically destroy the value of our currency, drain the wealth of the American public and enslave the federal government to perpetually expanding debt. During this election year, the economy is the number one issue that voters are concerned about. But instead of endlessly blaming both political parties, the truth is that most of the blame should be placed at the feet of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has more power over the performance of the U.S. economy than anyone else does. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply, the Federal Reserve sets the interest rates and the Federal Reserve hands out bailouts to the big banks that absolutely dwarf anything that Congress ever did. If the American people are ever going to learn what is really going on with our economy, then it is absolutely imperative that they get educated about the Federal Reserve.

The following are 10 things that every American should know about the Federal Reserve....

#1 The Federal Reserve System Is A Privately Owned Banking Cartel

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency.

The truth is that it is a privately owned central bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve system. We do not know how much of the system each bank owns, because that has never been disclosed to the American people.

The Federal Reserve openly admits that it is privately owned. When it was defending itself against a Bloomberg request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Reserve stated unequivocally in court that it was "not an agency" of the federal government and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

In fact, if you want to find out that the Federal Reserve system is owned by the member banks, all you have to do is go to the Federal Reserve website....

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Foreign governments and foreign banks do own significant ownership interests in the member banks that own the Federal Reserve system. So it would be accurate to say that the Federal Reserve is partially foreign-owned.

But until the exact ownership shares of the Federal Reserve are revealed, we will never know to what extent the Fed is foreign-owned.

#2 The Federal Reserve System Is A Perpetual Debt Machine

As long as the Federal Reserve System exists, U.S. government debt will continue to go up and up and up.

This runs contrary to the conventional wisdom that Democrats and Republicans would have us believe, but unfortunately it is true.

The way our system works, whenever more money is created more debt is created as well.

For example, whenever the U.S. government wants to spend more money than it takes in (which happens constantly), it has to go ask the Federal Reserve for it. The federal government gives U.S. Treasury bonds to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve gives the U.S. government "Federal Reserve Notes" in return. Usually this is just done electronically.

So where does the Federal Reserve get the Federal Reserve Notes?

It just creates them out of thin air.

Wouldn't you like to be able to create money out of thin air?

Instead of issuing money directly, the U.S. government lets the Federal Reserve create it out of thin air and then the U.S. government borrows it.

Talk about stupid.

When this new debt is created, the amount of interest that the U.S. government will eventually pay on that debt is not also created.

So where will that money come from?

Well, eventually the U.S. government will have to go back to the Federal Reserve to get even more money to finance the ever expanding debt that it has gotten itself trapped into.

It is a debt spiral that is designed to go on perpetually.

You see, the reality is that the money supply is designed to constantly expand under the Federal Reserve system. That is why we have all become accustomed to thinking of inflation as "normal".

So what does the Federal Reserve do with the U.S. Treasury bonds that it gets from the U.S. government?

Well, it sells them off to others. There are lots of people out there that have made a ton of money by holding U.S. government debt.

In fiscal 2011, the U.S. government paid out 454 billion dollars just in interest on the national debt.

That is 454 billion dollars that was taken out of our pockets and put into the pockets of wealthy individuals and foreign governments around the globe.

The truth is that our current debt-based monetary system was designed by greedy bankers that wanted to make enormous profits by using the Federal Reserve as a tool to create money out of thin air and lend it to the U.S. government at interest.

And that plan is working quite well.

Most Americans today don't understand how any of this works, but many prominent Americans in the past did understand it.

For example, Thomas Edison was once quoted in the New York Times as saying the following....

That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 — that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good.

We should have listened to men like Edison and Ford.

But we didn't.

And so we pay the price.

On July 1, 1914 (a few months after the Fed was created) the U.S. national debt was 2.9 billion dollars.

Today, it is more than more than 5000 times larger.

Yes, the perpetual debt machine is working quite well, and most Americans do not even realize what is happening.

#3 The Federal Reserve Has Destroyed More Than 96% Of The Value Of The U.S. Dollar

Did you know that the U.S. dollar has lost 96.2 percent of its value since 1900? Of course almost all of that decline has happened since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

Because the money supply is designed to expand constantly, it is guaranteed that all of our dollars will constantly lose value.

Inflation is a "hidden tax" that continually robs us all of our wealth. The Federal Reserve always says that it is "committed" to controlling inflation, but that never seems to work out so well.

And current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says that it is actually a good thing to have a little bit of inflation. He plans to try to keep the inflation rate at about 2 percent in the coming years.

So what is so bad about 2 percent? That doesn't sound so bad, does it?

Well, just consider the following excerpt from a recent Forbes article....

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

#4 The Federal Reserve Can Bail Out Whoever It Wants To With No Accountability

The American people got so upset about the bailouts that Congress gave to the Wall Street banks and to the big automakers, but did you know that the biggest bailouts of all were given out by the Federal Reserve?

Thanks to a very limited audit of the Federal Reserve that Congress approved a while back, we learned that the Fed made trillions of dollars in secret bailout loans to the big Wall Street banks during the last financial crisis. They even secretly loaned out hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign banks.

According to the results of the limited Fed audit mentioned above, a total of $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010.

The following is a list of loan recipients that was taken directly from page 131 of the audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

So why haven't we heard more about this?

This is scandalous.

In addition, it turns out that the Fed paid enormous sums of money to the big Wall Street banks to help "administer" these nearly interest-free loans....

Not only did the Federal Reserve give 16.1 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free loans to the "too big to fail" banks, the Fed also paid them over 600 million dollars to help run the emergency lending program. According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve shelled out an astounding $659.4 million in "fees" to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis in the first place.

Does reading that make you angry?

It should.

#5 The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks Not To Lend Money

Did you know that the Federal Reserve is actually paying banks not to make loans?

It is true.

Section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 allows the Federal Reserve to pay interest on "excess reserves" that U.S. banks park at the Fed.

So the banks can just send their cash to the Fed and watch the money come rolling in risk-free.

So are many banks taking advantage of this?

You tell me. Just check out the chart below. The amount of "excess reserves" parked at the Fed has gone from nearly nothing to about 1.5 trillion dollars since 2008....

But shouldn't the banks be lending the money to us so that we can start businesses and buy homes?

You would think that is how it is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve is not working for us.

The Federal Reserve is working for the big banks.

Sadly, most Americans have no idea what is going on.

Another example of this is the government debt carry trade.

Here is how it works. The Federal Reserve lends gigantic piles of nearly interest-free cash to the big Wall Street banks, and in turn those banks use the money to buy up huge amounts of government debt. Since the return on government debt is higher, the banks are able to make large profits very easily and with very little risk.

This scam was also explained in a recent article in the Guardian....

Consider this: we pretend that banks are private businesses that should be allowed to run their own affairs. But they are the biggest scroungers of public money of our time. Banks are lent vast sums of money by central banks at near-zero interest. They lend that money to us or back to the government at higher rates and rake in the difference by the billion. They don't even have to make clever investments to make huge profits.

That is a pretty good little scam they have got going, wouldn't you say?

#6 The Federal Reserve Creates Artificial Economic Bubbles That Are Extremely Damaging

By allowing a centralized authority such as the Federal Reserve to dictate interest rates, it creates an environment where financial bubbles can be created very easily.

Over the past several decades, we have seen bubble after bubble. Most of these have been the result of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low. If the free market had been setting interest rates all this time, things would have never gotten so far out of hand.

For example, the housing crash would have never been so horrific if the Federal Reserve had not created such ideal conditions for a housing bubble in the first place. But we allow the Fed to continue to make the same mistakes.

Right now, the Federal Reserve continues to set interest rates much, much lower than they should be. This is causing a tremendous misallocation of economic resources, and there will be massive consequences for that down the line.

#7 The Federal Reserve System Is Dominated By The Big Wall Street Banks

Even since it was created, the Federal Reserve system has been dominated by the big Wall Street banks.

The following is from a previous article that I did about the Fed....

The New York representative is the only permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, while other regional banks rotate in 2 and 3 year intervals. The former head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, is now U.S. Treasury Secretary. The truth is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has always been the most important of the regional Fed banks by far, and in turn the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has always been dominated by Wall Street and the major New York banks.

#8 It Is Not An Accident That We Saw The Personal Income Tax And The Federal Reserve System Both Come Into Existence In 1913

On February 3rd, 1913 the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Later that year, the United States Revenue Act of 1913 imposed a personal income tax on the American people and we have had one ever since.

Without a personal income tax, it is hard to have a central bank. It takes a lot of money to finance all of the government debt that a central banking system creates.

It is no accident that the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and the Federal Reserve system was also created in 1913.

They have a symbiotic relationship and they are designed to work together.

We could fill Congress with people that are committed to ending this oppressive system, but so far we have chosen not to do that.

So our children and our grandchildren will face a lifetime of debt slavery because of us.

I am sure they will be thankful for that.

#9 The Current Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, Has A Nightmarish Track Record Of Incompetence

The mainstream media portrays Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a brilliant economist, but is that really the case?

Let's go to the videotape.

The following is an extended excerpt from an article that I published previously....

----------

In 2005, Bernanke said that we shouldn't worry because housing prices had never declined on a nationwide basis before and he said that he believed that the U.S. would continue to experience close to "full employment"....

"We’ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don’t think it’s gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though."

In 2005, Bernanke also said that he believed that derivatives were perfectly safe and posed no danger to financial markets....

"With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly."

In 2006, Bernanke said that housing prices would probably keep rising....

"Housing markets are cooling a bit. Our expectation is that the decline in activity or the slowing in activity will be moderate, that house prices will probably continue to rise."

In 2007, Bernanke insisted that there was not a problem with subprime mortgages....

"At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained. In particular, mortgages to prime borrowers and fixed-rate mortgages to all classes of borrowers continue to perform well, with low rates of delinquency."

In 2008, Bernanke said that a recession was not coming....

"The Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession."

A few months before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed, Bernanke insisted that they were totally secure....

"The GSEs are adequately capitalized. They are in no danger of failing."

For many more examples that demonstrate the absolutely nightmarish track record of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, please see the following articles....

*"Say What? 30 Ben Bernanke Quotes That Are So Stupid That You Won’t Know Whether To Laugh Or Cry"

*"Is Ben Bernanke A Liar, A Lunatic Or Is He Just Completely And Totally Incompetent?"

But after being wrong over and over and over, Barack Obama still nominated Ben Bernanke for another term as Chairman of the Fed.

----------

#10 The Federal Reserve Has Become Way Too Powerful

The Federal Reserve is the most undemocratic institution in America.

The Federal Reserve has become so powerful that it is now known as "the fourth branch of government", but there are less checks and balances on the Fed than there are on the other three branches.

The Federal Reserve runs the U.S. economy but it is not accountable to the American people. We can't vote those that run the Fed out of office if we do not like what they do.

Yes, the president appoints those that run the Fed, but he also knows that if he does not tread lightly he won't get the money from the big Wall Street banks that he needs for his next election.

Thankfully, there are a few members of Congress that are complaining about how much power the Fed has. For example, Ron Paul once told MSNBC that he believes that the Federal Reserve is now actually more powerful than Congress.....

"The regulations should be on the Federal Reserve. We should have transparency of the Federal Reserve. They can create trillions of dollars to bail out their friends, and we don’t even have any transparency of this. They’re more powerful than the Congress."

As members of Congress such as Ron Paul have started to shed some light on the activities of the Federal Reserve, that has caused many in the mainstream media to come to the defense of the Fed.

For example, a recent CNBC article entitled "If The Federal Reserve Is Abolished, What Then?" makes it sound like there is absolutely no other rational alternative to having the Federal Reserve run our economy.

But this is not what our founders intended.

The founders did not intend for a private banking cartel to issue our money and set our interest rates for us.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Congress has been given the responsibility to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures".

So why is the Federal Reserve doing it?

But the CNBC article mentioned above makes it sound like the sky would fall if control of the currency was handed back over to the American people.

At one point, the article asks the following question....

"How would the U.S. economy then function? Something has to take its place, right?"

No, the truth is that we don't need anyone to "manage" our economy.

The U.S. Treasury could be in charge of issuing our currency and the free market could set our interest rates.

We don't need to have a centrally-planned economy.

We aren't China.

And it goes against everything that our founders believed to be running up so much government debt.

For example, Thomas Jefferson once declared that if he could add just one more amendment to the U.S. Constitution it would be a ban on all government borrowing....

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.

Oh, how things would have been different if we had only listened to Thomas Jefferson.

Voter registration/fraud?

2012-02-10T18:24:00.000-08:00

An interesting and disturbing couple of video clips!
Do you wonder how your state is doing on voter registration/fraud? Do you know?

We wondered, here in Minnesota, how our present Governor Dayton and our Senator Franken got elected when we elected a majority of Republicans to both our state House and Senate. I wonder, do the two attached videos provide a modicum of light into what might possibly be the reason? Do these video's provide enough information to show folks that an official state photo ID is a good way to prevent any voter fraud from occurring? The first video is from New Hampshire and the second is from Minnesota.

http://youtu.be/9-uVhhIlPk0

http://www.wewantvoterid.com/2012/02/james-okeefes-project-veritas-examines-minnesotas-voter-registration-and-absentee-ballot-systems/

I wonder how many states are like Minnesota and New Hampshire in NOT requiring ANY identification???

A Polite Primer On Keeping Politics In Proper Perspective

2012-02-09T15:24:00.000-08:00

A Polite Primer On Keeping Politics In Proper Perspective

1.The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

2.The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

3.The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

5.The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.

6.The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a pretty poor job of it, thank you very much.

7.The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the subway.

8.The New York Post is read by people who don't care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9.The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.

10.The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose everything that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped, minorities, feminists, homosexuals, lesbians, trans-sexuals, atheists, dwarfs, midgets,, illegal immigrants, persons from any foreign country or aliens from another planet, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.

11.The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

12.The Key West Citizen is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.

Minority Group - Nazi

2012-01-27T07:50:00.000-08:00

Why Congress Isn't Liable for Insider Trading

2012-01-11T21:29:00.000-08:00

Why Congress Isn't Liable for Insider Trading

By Lawrence Greenberg | More Articles
January 10, 2012 | Comments (26)
Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

Click Here Now

At one time or another, Congress self-servingly said its members didn't need to obey laws as varied (and burdensome) as the Civil Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Nevertheless, Congress didn't exempt itself from the law against insider trading -- at least in part because there isn't one.

Unlike some other countries, the United States has no law forbidding people from trading on inside information. Does that mean that famous convicted inside-traders such as ImClone's Sam Waksal, corporate-raider Gordon Gekko, or Galleon Group's Raj Rajaratnam should call their lawyers and appeal their criminal convictions? No (although Gekko is fictional and Waksal already served his time).

What the law says
For lawyers, one of the neat characteristics of U.S. securities laws is that they're made up of statutes, Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, and court decisions interpreting those laws and regulations. The SEC's Rule 10b5, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, makes it illegal for anyone to "employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud" in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.

Over time, the courts have held that people engage in fraud or deception under Rule 10b5 when they trade on material, nonpublic information obtained as part of a relationship of trust or confidence -- so, to simplify, it's generally illegal for you or me to trade on the inside information we learn from our employers.

It's important to recognize, though, that the SEC's rules, as interpreted by the courts, don't make it illegal for people merely to trade on information that others don't have. We want people to conduct research and develop unique information. Rather, the securities laws try to level the playing field between corporate insiders, who generally have access to lots of information, and outsiders, who have less. That's why the courts have required that, in order for a person's trading on nonpublic information to be illegal, the person must have obtained that information because of a special, trusted status and have a duty to keep it confidential -- typically because the person has a position at a company or enjoys a relationship of confidence, as would a lawyer, for example.

Two theories of insider trading
There are two main theories of insider trading. The "classical" theory applies when people trade in a company's stock based on information they receive from that company, when they have some obligation to keep that information secret. In other words, if you're an executive at XYZ Co., and you learn that XYZ has been awarded a big defense contract, your decision to buy XYZ stock before the deal is announced could be a fashion choice, as well as an investment decision, and you'd better hope that you look good in prison stripes (or orange jumpsuits, as applicable).

Members of Congress aren't likely to be subject to liability under this theory because they don't owe confidentiality to companies in the marketplace. They're Congress, dagnabbit, not corporate flunkies (I could write something snarky here, but I won't).

The "misappropriation" theory of insider trading says that when people have a fiduciary or similar obligation to someone, they can't use that person's information for their own gain without disclosing their use of the information to that person. An example helps here: If a lawyer who represents PQR Co. learns that PQR is about to buy XYZ, he can't just run out and buy XYZ stock. Note that in a misappropriation case, the "victim" is actually the source of the information, not the faceless, uninformed chump on the other side of the transaction.

The enforcement challenge
You might think, as some legal scholars do, that members of Congress owe the American people at least as much loyalty as lawyers owe their clients, so that members who used congressional information for their own ends would be misappropriating it and thus breaking the law.

But other legal scholars, as well as the SEC, doubt that members owe that sort of duty. As Thomas Newkirk, former associate director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, told The Wall Street Journal, members don't have "a duty of confidentiality to anybody and therefore ... would not be liable for insider trading."

Similarly, Robert Khuzami, director of the Enforcement Division, testified before Senate in November that to win an insider trading case against a member of Congress, the SEC would have to demonstrate that the lawmaker violated a fiduciary or other duty of trust and confidence, and it is not clear that such congressional trading "violates the fiduciary duty he or she owes to the United States and its citizens, or to the federal government as his or her employer."

Without a firm understanding that the law is on their side, SEC regulators or Justice Department prosecutors are unlikely to bring cases against members who trade on congressional information. Bringing an action against a member of the branch of government that sets your budget is hard enough, but it's particularly daunting when your legal basis is shaky.

So, for now, it appears that unlike the rest of us, members of Congress can trade on inside information with legal impunity. They didn't create that situation, but unless they pass the STOCK Act, or something like it, they're certainly perpetuating it.

Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter considering “nuclear option” to protest SOPA

2012-01-04T03:44:00.000-08:00

Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter considering “nuclear option” to protest SOPA

By Joel Hruska on January 3, 2012 at 12:00 pm

The battle against SOPA reached fever pitch just before Christmas when a Reddit-led boycott of Go Daddy over the domain registrar’s support for the controversial legislation led to some 37,000 domains leaving the company for greener, freedom-loving pastures. Go Daddy, meanwhile, is now buried in complaints that it’s improperly blocking domain transfer requests to rival Namecheap.

With debate over SOPA’s future tabled until Congress reconvenes, you might think the issue would have entered a similar lull, but that’s not happened. According to Markham Erickson, head of the NetCoalition trade association, there’s been talk of a so-called “nuclear option,” in which the likes of Google, Amazon, eBay, and Yahoo! would go simultaneously dark to protest the legislation to highlight the fundamental danger the legislation poses to the function of the internet.

There’s been no formal decision on the matter, and the companies in question obviously risk consumer anger and backlash over any suspension of services. There is, however, safety in numbers — and a few simple sentences identifying why the blackout is in place will ensure that the majority of the rage flows in the proper direction.

It’s a trump card that the likes of the MPAA and RIAA have no way of matching. There’s solid technical data behind the tech industry’s claims that implementing SOPA could damage the function of the internet, and plenty of evidence (some of it just weeks old) that copyright holders will abuse existing judicial processes to eliminate content they don’t like. The MPAA and RIAA are willing to talk about jobs lost to piracy in the abstract, but won’t (and can’t) promise that passing SOPA will allow them to hire thousands of Americans or create jobs in a statement they’d be held accountable for fulfilling.

There’s no information yet on when the blackout would occur, but the most likely date right now would be January 23. The Senate is scheduled to debate SOPA on January 24. Speaking in December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid highlighted the importance of passing the legislation. “This is a bipartisan piece of legislation which is extremely important,” Reid said Saturday. “I repeat, it is bipartisan. I hope we can have a productive couple of days, pass this bill, and move on to other matters.”

Bring on the nukes.

Special Interests...EXPOSED!!!

2011-12-23T16:01:00.000-08:00

An aphorism is an original thought, spoken or written in a laconic (concise) and memorable form.

2011-12-22T09:25:00.000-08:00

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man
is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.
- John Adams

2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read
the newspaper you are misinformed.
- Mark Twain

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But then I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain

4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is
like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.
- Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man,
which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
- G. Gordon Liddy

7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
on what to have for dinner.
- James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor
people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
- Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car
keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors
to live at the expense of everybody else.
- Frederic Bastiat, French economist(1801-1850)

11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And
if it stops moving, subsidize it.
- Ronald Reagan (1986)

12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the
facts.
- Will Rogers

13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what
it costs when it's free!
- P.J. O'Rourke

14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money
as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
- Voltaire (1764)

15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean
politics won't take an interest in you!
- Pericles (430 B.C.)

16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature
is in session.
- Mark Twain (1866)

17. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.
- Anonymous

18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy
appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan

19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
misery.
- Winston Churchill

20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that
the taxidermist leaves the skin.
- Mark Twain

21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools.
- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

22. There is no distinctly Native American criminal class...save
Congress.
- Mark Twain

23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
- Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)

24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
- Thomas Jefferson

25. We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public
office.
- Aesop

FIVE BEST SENTENCES

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the
wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for...another person must
work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work
because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the
other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody
else is going to get what they worked for, that is the beginning of the
end of any nation!

Current European tax Rates

2011-12-10T13:09:00.000-08:00

United Kingdom
Income Tax: 50%
VAT: 17.5% TOTAL: 67.5%
France
Income Tax: 40%
VAT: 19.6% TOTAL: 59.6%
Greece
Income Tax: 40%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 65%
Spain
Income Tax: 45%
VAT: 16% TOTAL: 61%
Portugal
Income Tax: 42%
VAT: 20% TOTAL: 62%
Sweden
Income Tax: 55%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 80%
Norway
Income Tax: 54.3%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 79.3%
Netherlands
Income Tax: 52%
VAT: 19% TOTAL: 71%
Denmark
Income Tax: 58%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 83%
Finland
Income Tax: 53%
VAT: 22% TOTAL: 75%

If you've started to wonder what the real costs of socialism are going to be - once the full program in these United States hits your wallet - take a look at the table. As you digest these mind-boggling figures, keep in mind that in spite of these astronomical tax rates, these countries are still not financing their social welfare programs exclusively from tax revenues! They are deeply mired in public debt of gargantuan proportions. Greece has reached the point where its debt is so huge it is in imminent danger of defaulting. That is the reason the European economic community has intervened to bail them out. If you're following the financial news, you know Spain and Portugal are right behind Greece.

The United States is now heading right down the same path. The VAT tax in the table is the national sales tax that Europeans pay. Stay tuned because that is exactly what you can expect to see the administration proposing after the fall elections. The initial percentage in the United States isn't going to be anywhere near the outrageous numbers you now see in Europe. Guess what. the current outrageous numbers in Europe didn't start out as outrageous either. They started out as minuscule - right around the 1% or 2% where they will start out in the United States. Magically, however, they ran up over the years to where they are now. Expect the same thing here.

It is the very notion that with hard work and perseverance, anybody can get ahead economically here in the USA. Do you think that can ever happen with tax rates between 60% and 80%? Think again. With the government taking that percentage of your money, your life will be exactly like life in Europe.... You will never be able to buy a home. You will never buy a car. You will never send your children to college. Let's not shuffle the battle cry of the socialists under the rug either. It's always the same cry. Equalize income. Spread the wealth to the poor (whoever they are). Level the economic playing field. Accomplish that and everything will be rosy.

It's time to take a really hard look at reality. Greece is a perfect example. Despite the socialism system that has ruled this country for decades, with a 65% tax rate, they are drowning in public debt, would have defaulted without hundreds of billions in bailout money from the EU, and still: 20% of their population lives in poverty. What has all that socialism money bought, besides ultimate power for the politicians running the show? Do you think these people are "free?" They're not. They are slaves to their economic "system."

Jobs and What They Mean to the American People

2011-11-23T10:10:00.001-08:00

12 Facts About Money And Congress That Are So Outrageous That It Is Hard To Believe That They Are Actually True

2011-11-09T10:24:00.000-08:00

Do you want to get rich? Just get elected to Congress. The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives are absolutely packed with wealthy people that are very rapidly becoming even wealthier. The collective net worth of the members of Congress is now measured in the billions of dollars. The people that we have elected to the House and Senate are absolutely swimming in money. Unfortunately, it is not easy to get elected to Congress. In this day and age you generally have to be heavily connected to those that are very wealthy to get into Congress because it takes gigantic amounts of cash to win campaigns. But if you can get in to the club, you pretty much have it made. The numbers that you are about to read are very difficult to believe and they should deeply sadden you. They show that Congress has become all about money. Congressional races are mostly financed by wealthy people, most of the people that we elect to Congress are very wealthy, and they rapidly get wealthier after they are elected. All of this money has turned our republic into something far different than our founding fathers intended.

The following are 12 statistics about money and Congress that are so outrageous that it is hard to believe that they are actually true....

#1 The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress increased by 25 percent between 2008 and 2010.

#2 The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress is now slightly over 2 billion dollars. That is "billion" with a "b".

#3 This happened during a time when the net worth of most American households was declining rapidly. According to the Federal Reserve, the collective net worth of all American households decreased by 23 percent between 2007 and 2009.

#4 The average net worth for a member of Congress is now approximately 3.8 million dollars.

#5 The net worth of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi increased by 62 percent from 2009 to 2010. In 2009 it was reported that she had a net worth of 21.7 million dollars, and in 2010 it was reported that she had a net worth of 35.2 million dollars.

#6 The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, saw his wealth grow by 29 percent from 2009 to 2010. He is now worth approximately 9.8 million dollars.

#7 More than 50 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires.

#8 In 2008, the average cost of winning a seat in the House of Representatives was $1.1 million and the average cost of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate was $6.5 million. Spending on political campaigns has gotten way out of control.

#9 Insider trading is perfectly legal for members of the U.S. Congress - and they refuse to pass a law that would change that.

#10 The percentage of millionaires in Congress is more than 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general population.

#11 U.S. Representative Darrell Issa is worth approximately 220 million dollars. His wealth grew by approximately 37 percent from 2009 to 2010.

#12 The wealthiest member of Congress, U.S. Representative Michael McCaul, is worth approximately 294 million dollars.

So how are members of Congress becoming so wealthy?

Well, there are lots of ways they are raking in the cash, but one especially alarming thing that goes on is that members of Congress often make investments in companies that will go up significantly if legislation that is being considered by Congress "goes the right way".

This is called a "conflict of interest", but it happens constantly in Congress and nobody seems to get into any trouble for it.

The following is video of Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes ambushing Nancy Pelosi about one particular conflict of interest involving credit card legislation. As you can see, she does not want to talk about it....

Popout

As noted above, insider trading is perfectly legal for members of Congress.

A law that would ban insider trading by members of Congress has been stalled for years on Capitol Hill.

So has this been a significant benefit to members of Congress?

Well, there has been at least one study that appears to indicate that members of Congress have been much more successful in the stock market than members of the general public have....

A 2004 study of the results of stock trading by United States Senators during the 1990s found that that senators on average beat the market by 12% a year. In sharp contrast, U.S. households on average underperformed the market by 1.4% a year and even corporate insiders on average beat the market by only about 6% a year during that period. A reasonable inference is that some Senators had access to - and were using - material nonpublic information about the companies in whose stock they trade.

Of course all of this could just be a coincidence, right?

Meanwhile, members of Congress keep telling the rest of us that we are just going to have to cut back because times are tough.

For example, during an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Nancy Pelosi actually claimed that we should try to encourage poor people to have less children because it costs the government so much money to take care of them....

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

This elitist attitude extends all the way into the White House as well. Earlier this year, Barack Obama made the following statement....

"If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, or you might put off a vacation."

Meanwhile, the Obamas are living the high life at taxpayer expense. In a previous article I mentioned one outrageously expensive vacation taken by the Obamas that was paid for by our taxes....

"Back in August, Michelle Obama took her daughter Sasha and 40 of her friends for a vacation in Spain.

So what was the bill to the taxpayers for that little jaunt across the pond?

It is estimated that vacation alone cost U.S. taxpayers $375,000."

There is a massive disconnect between what our politicians say and what our politicians do.

The high life is good enough for them, but the rest of us have got to "cut back" and suffer becomes times are hard.

But when it comes to money and Congress, the most corrupting influence of all is probably all of the campaign money that gets thrown around.

In America today, it takes gigantic mountains of money to run a successful campaign.

Sadly, the candidate that raises the most money almost always wins. In federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time.

More than 5 billion dollars were spent on political campaigns back in 2008.

That represents a huge number of favors that need to be paid back.

In 2012, it is being projected that 8 billion dollars could be spent on political campaigns.

When big corporations and wealthy individuals shovel huge piles of money into political campaigns, it is generally because they expect something in return.

Most of those that get sent to Congress realize that they never would have won if wealthy donors had not showered cash on them. Most of them understand that they should not bite the hands that feed them if they want the cash to keep rolling in.

Politics in America has become a game that is played by the elite for the benefit of the elite.

Average Americans have the perception that they are involved in the process and that their opinions really matter, but mostly it is just an illusion.

It is so sad.

Meanwhile, members of Congress rapidly get wealthier and average American families continue to suffer. In fact, the standard of living in the United States has fallen farther over the past three years than at any other time that has ever been recorded in U.S. history.

But for members of Congress the good times just keep on rolling.

Just as it has been for most of human history, the rich rule over the poor.

Does anyone out there believe that we have any hope of changing this?

Useful idiots for Palestine

2011-11-06T15:24:00.000-08:00

A commentary on the OWS movement

2011-11-06T05:18:00.001-08:00

From Mary Beth Hicks (commentator for the Washington Times)

Call it an occupational hazard, but I can’t look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters without thinking, “Who parented these people?”

As a culture columnist, I’ve commented on the social and political ramifications of the “movement” – now known as “OWS” – whose fairyland agenda can be summarized by one of their placards: “Everything for everybody.”

Thanks to their pipe-dream platform, it’s clear there are people with serious designs on “transformational” change in America who are using the protesters like bedsprings in a brothel.

Yet it’s not my role as a commentator that prompts my parenting question, but rather the fact that I’m the mother of four teens and young adults. There are some crucial life lessons that the protesters’ moms clearly have not passed along.

Here, then, are five things the OWS protesters’ mothers should have taught their children but obviously didn’t, so I will.

• Life isn’t fair. The concept of justice – that everyone should be treated fairly – is a worthy and worthwhile moral imperative on which our nation was founded. But justice and economic equality are not the same. Or, as Mick Jagger [2] said, “You can’t always get what you want.”

No matter how you try to “level the playing field,” some people have better luck, skills, talents or connections that land them in better places. Some seem to have all the advantages in life but squander them, others play the modest hand they’re dealt and make up the difference in hard work and perseverance, and some find jobs on Wall Street and eventually buy houses in the Hamptons. Is it fair? Stupid question.

• Nothing is “free.” Protesting with signs that seek “free” college degrees and “free” health care make you look like idiots, because colleges and hospitals don’t operate on rainbows and sunshine. There is no magic money machine to tap for your meandering educational careers and “slow paths” to adulthood, and the 53 percent of taxpaying Americans owe you neither a degree nor an annual physical.

While I’m pointing out this obvious fact, here are a few other things that are not free: overtime for police officers and municipal workers, trash hauling, repairs to fixtures and property, condoms, Band-Aids and the food that inexplicably appears on the tables in your makeshift protest kitchens. Real people with real dollars are underwriting your civic temper tantrum.

• Your word is your bond. When you demonstrate to eliminate student loan debt, you are advocating precisely the lack of integrity you decry in others. Loans are made based on solemn promises to repay them. No one forces you to borrow money; you are free to choose educational pursuits that don’t require loans, or to seek technical or vocational training that allows you to support yourself and your ongoing educational goals. Also, for the record, being a college student is not a state of victimization. It’s a privilege that billions of young people around the globe would die for – literally.

• A protest is not a party. On Saturday in New York, while making a mad dash from my cab to the door of my hotel to avoid you, I saw what isn’t evident in the newsreel footage of your demonstrations: Most of you are doing this only for attention and fun. Serious people in a sober pursuit of social and political change don’t dance jigs down Sixth Avenue like attendees of a Renaissance festival. You look foolish, you smell gross, you are clearly high and you don’t seem to realize that all around you are people who deem you irrelevant.

• There are reasons you haven’t found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity isn’t a virtue. Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It’s not them. It’s you.

(© 2011 Marybeth Hicks)

Obama bumper stickers

2011-10-10T16:22:00.000-07:00

Stick a fork in, Obama is done

2011-09-18T13:10:00.001-07:00

Stick a fork in, Obama is done

[See also: Obama’s 'Crony-Gate' Scandal Widens — Billions Now Under Scrutiny]

The Solyndra Fraud

By Andrew McCarthy, NRO

The solar-energy company was a con game.

The Solyndra debacle is not just Obama-style crony socialism as usual. It is a criminal fraud. That is the theory that would be guiding any competent prosecutor’s office in the investigation of a scheme that cost victims — in this case, American taxpayers — a fortune.

Fraud against the United States is one of the most serious felony offenses in the federal penal law. It is even more serious than another apparent Solyndra violation that has captured congressional attention: the Obama administration’s flouting of a statute designed to protect taxpayers.

Homing in on one of the several shocking aspects of the Solyndra scandal, lawmakers noted that, a few months before the “clean energy” enterprise went belly-up last week, the Obama Energy Department signed off on a sweetheart deal. In the event of bankruptcy — the destination to which it was screamingly obvious Solyndra was headed despite the president’s injection of $535 million in federal loans — the cozily connected private investors would be given priority over American taxpayers. In other words, when the busted company’s assets were sold off, Obama pals would recoup some of their losses, while you would be left holding the half-billion-dollar bag.

As Andrew Stiles reported here at NRO, Republicans on the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee say this arrangement ran afoul of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This law — compassionate conservatism in green bunting — is a monstrosity, under which Leviathan, which can’t run a post office, uses your money to pick winners and losers in the economy’s energy sector. The idea is cockamamie, but Congress did at least write in a mandate that taxpayers who fund these “investments” must be prioritized over other stakeholders. The idea is to prevent cronies from pushing ahead of the public if things go awry — as they are wont to do when pols fancy themselves venture capitalists.

On the Energy Policy Act, the administration’s malfeasance is significant, but secondary. That’s because the act is not a penal statute. It tells the cabinet officials how to structure these “innovative technology” loans, but it provides no remedy if Congress’s directives are ignored.

The criminal law, by contrast, is not content to assume the good faith of government officials. It targets anyone — from low-level swindlers to top elective officeholders — who attempts to influence the issuance of government loans by making false statements; who engages in schemes to defraud the United States; or who conspires “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, in any manner or for any purpose.” The penalties are steep: Fraud in connection with government loans, for example, can be punished by up to 30 years in the slammer.

Although Solyndra was a private company, moreover, it was using its government loans as a springboard to go public. When the sale of securities is involved, federal law criminalizes fraudulent schemes, false statements of material fact, and statements that omit any “material fact necessary in order to make the statements made . . . not misleading.” And we’re not just talking about statements made in required SEC filings. Any statement made to deceive the market can be actionable. In 2003, for example, the Justice Department famously charged Martha Stewart with securities fraud. Among other allegations, prosecutors cited public statements she had made in press releases and at a conference for securities analysts — statements in which she withheld damaging information in an effort to inflate the value of her corporation and its stock.

That’s exactly what President Obama did on May 26, 2010, with his Solyndra friends about to launch their initial public offering of stock. The solar-panel company’s California factory was selected as the fitting site for a presidential speech on the virtues of confiscating taxpayer billions to prop up pie-in-the-sky clean-energy businesses.

By then, the con game was already well under way. Solyndra had first tried to get Energy Act funding during the Bush administration, but had been rebuffed shortly before President Bush left office. Small wonder: Solyndra, as former hedge-fund manager Bruce Krasting concluded, was “an absolute complete disaster.” Its operating expenses, including supply costs, nearly doubled its revenue in 2009 — and that’s without factoring in capital expenditures and other costs in what, Krasting observes, is a “low margin” industry. The chance that Solyndra would ever become profitable was essentially nonexistent, particularly given that solar-panel competitors backed by China produce energy at drastically lower prices.

Yet, as Stiles reports, within six days of Obama’s taking office, an Energy Department official acknowledged that the Solyndra “approval process” was suddenly being considered anew. Eventually, the administration made Solyndra the very first recipient of a public loan guarantee when the Energy Act program was beefed up in 2009 — just part of nearly a trillion dollars burned through under the Obama stimulus.

For a while after Solyndra tanked, the administration stonewalled the House subcommittee’s investigation, but we now know that minions in the Energy Department and the Office of Management and Budget had enormous qualms about the Solyndra loan. They realized that the company was hemorrhaging money and, even with the loan, would lack the necessary working capital to turn that equation around. Yet they caved under White House pressure to sign off in time for Vice President Joe Biden to make a ballyhooed announcement of the loan in September 2009. An OMB e-mail laments that the timing of the loan approval was driven by the politics of the announcement “rather than the other way around.”

Why so much pressure to give half a billion dollars to a doomed venture? The administration insists it had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Solyndra’s big backers include the George Kaiser Family Foundation. No, of course not. George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil magnate, just happens to be a major Obama fundraiser who bundled oodles in contributions for the president’s 2008 campaign. Solyndra officers and investors are said to have visited the White House no fewer than 20 times while the loan guarantee was being considered and, later, revised. Kaiser, too, made several visits — but not to worry: Both he and administration officials deny any impropriety. You’re to believe that the White House was just turning up the heat on OMB and DOE because Solyndra seemed like such a swell investment.

Except it didn’t seem so swell to people who knew how to add and subtract, and those people weren’t all at OMB and DOE. Flush with confidence that their mega-loan from Uncle Sam would make the company attractive to private investors, Solyndra’s backers prepared to take the company public. Unfortunately, SEC rules for an initial public offering of stock require the disclosure of more than Obama speeches glowing with solar power. Companies that want access to the market have to reveal their financial condition.

In Solyndra’s case, outside auditors from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) found that condition to be dire. “The company has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception, and has a net stockholders’ deficit,” the PWC accountants concluded. Even with the gigantic Obama loan, Solyndra was such a basket case that PWC found “substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”

The “going concern” language is not boilerplate. As Townhall finance maven John Ransom explains, it is a term of art to which auditors resort when there is an extraordinary need to protect themselves and the company from legal liability. Angry investors who’ve lost their shirts tend to scapegoat the loser company’s accountants. In truth, even if the accountants affixed a neon “going concern” sign to the company’s financial statements, investors would have no one but themselves to blame. But it is unusual: The language is absent from the statements of many companies that actually end up going bankrupt. Auditors reserve it for the hopeless causes — like Solyndra.

With no alternative if they wanted to make a play for market financing, Solyndra’s backers disclosed the auditors’ bleak diagnosis in March 2010. The government had thus been aware of it for two months when President Obama made his May 26 Solyndra speech — the speech Solyndra backers were clearly hoping would mitigate the damage.

As president, Obama had a fiduciary responsibility to be forthright about Solyndra’s grim prospects — in speaking to the American taxpayers whose money he had redistributed, and to the American investors who were about to be solicited for even more funding. Instead, he pulled a Martha Stewart.

The president looked us in the eye and averred that, when it came to channeling public funds into private hands, “We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra.” He bragged that the $535 billion loan had enabled the company to build the state-of-the-art factory in which he was then speaking. He said nothing about how Solyndra was continuing to lose money — public money — at a catastrophic pace. Instead, he painted the brightest of pictures: 3,000 construction workers to build the thriving plant; manufacturers in 22 states building an endless stream of supplies; technicians in a dozen states constructing the advanced equipment that would make the factory hum; and Solyndra fully “expect[ing] to hire a thousand workers to manufacture solar panels and sell them across America and around the world.”

Not content with that rosy portrait, the president further predicted a “ripple effect”: Solyndra would “generate business for companies throughout our country who will create jobs supplying this factory with parts and materials.” Sure it would. The auditors had scrutinized Solyndra and found it to have, from its inception, a fatally flawed business model that was hurtling toward collapse. Obama touted it as a redistribution success story that would be rippling jobs, growth, and spectacular success for the foreseeable future.

It was a breathtaking misrepresentation. Happily, it proved insufficient to dupe investors who, unlike taxpayers, get to choose where their money goes. They stacked what the administration was saying against what the PWC auditors were saying and wisely went with PWC. Solyndra had to pull its initial public offering due to lack of interest.

But fraud doesn’t have to be fully successful to be a fraud, and this one still had another chapter to go. As the IPO failed and the company inevitably sank in a sea of red ink, Solyndra’s panicked backers pleaded with the administration to restructure the loan terms — to insulate them from their poor business judgment, allowing them to recoup some of their investment while the public took the fall.

It should go without saying that the duty of soi-disant public servants is to serve the public. In this instance, the proper course was clear. As structured, the loan gave the public first dibs on Solyndra’s assets if it collapsed, and, as we’ve seen, the law requires it. There was no good reason to contemplate a change.

In addition, as Andrew Stiles relates, OMB had figured out that there was no economic sense in restructuring: Solyndra was heading for bankruptcy anyway, and an immediate liquidation would net the government a better deal — about $170 million better. The case for leaving things where they stood was so palpable that OMB openly feared “questions will be asked” if DOE proceeded with an unjustifiable restructuring. So, with numbing predictability, the Obama administration proceeded with an unjustifiable restructuring. In exchange for lending some of their own money and thus buying more time, Solyndra officials were given priority over taxpayers with respect to the first $75 million in the event of a bankruptcy — the event all the insiders and government officials could see coming from the start, and that hit the rest of us like a $535 billion thunderbolt last week.

The administration’s rationalization is priceless. According to DOE officials, the restructuring was necessary “to create a situation whereby investors felt there was a value in their investment.” Of course, the value in an investment is the value created by the business in which the investment is made. Here, Solyndra had no value. Investors could be enticed only by an invalid arrangement to recoup some of their losses — by a scheme to make the public an even bigger sap.

The word for such schemes is fraud.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Saddam and WMD:President Bush did not lie

2011-09-14T20:18:00.000-07:00

Saddam: What We Now Know
Bin Laden struck first, but Saddam was at least as big a terror threat.

Saddam Hussein was a WMD threat and a terror threat to the United States and its allies.

Too many of the post-9/11 critics have forgotten or were never aware of this fact. Even in last week’s NRO symposium, writers called the invasion of Iraq an “unjust war,” an “optional war,” and finally a “result of the flawed intelligence that skewed the perceived threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime to the United States.”

There is little doubt that the pre-war intelligence on Iraq was faulty, mostly because of Saddam’s continuing attempts to convince Iran that he still maintained a potent WMD capacity despite years of sanctions. Unfortunately, in the years of recriminations following the invasion of Iraq the actual truth was lost, until it became commonplace for even those who supported the invasion to admit that Saddam did not pose a WMD threat. Likewise, as he was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, many believe he was not a terror threat either.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Before the consensus is written in stone, it is worth going over the evidence collected since the removal of the Saddam regime. Leaving aside the fact that he slaughtered more than a million of his own people and was prone to launching unprovoked wars against his neighbors — both good reasons for his violent removal — what threat did Saddam actually pose? Let’s go through just a sliver of the evidence.

SADDAM AND WMDS
When American tanks smashed into Baghdad, Saddam had already completed construction of an anthrax production facility, which was a week away from going live. If it had been permitted to go into production, this one facility could have produced ten tons of weaponized anthrax a year. Experts estimate that anthrax spores that infect the skin will kill 50 percent of untreated victims. Inhaled anthrax will kill 100 percent of untreated victims and 50 percent of those receiving immediate treatment. That means that a mere 1 percent of Saddam’s annual production (200 pounds) sprayed by crop-duster over New York City would have killed upwards of three million people.

Anthrax, however, was far from the only WMD Saddam was actively researching and working assiduously to acquire. He also had teams working overtime to create a stockpile of some of the most deadly biological weapons possible. Several years ago, the press had a field day when two suspected mobile bio-labs, presented at the U.N. as evidence of Saddam’s continuing WMD development programs, actually turned out to be weather-balloon stations. That same press, however, then ignored the fact that postwar investigators found five actual mobile bio-labs in and around Baghdad. One of these labs was discovered in a mosque, which had been placed off-limits to prewar U.N. inspectors. Another was found in Baghdad’s Central Public Health Laboratory. One can imagine the anguished cries from the Left if we had bombed what the Iraqis claimed was a public-health facility. Saddam even had a huge bio-warfare production facility masquerading as the Samarra Drug Company. This facility would have been capable of producing up to 10,000 liters of deadly pathogens a year. It was less than a month from going into production when the invasion of Iraq began. If this plant had turned its attention to botulinum toxin, it could have produced enough in a few months to wipe out the world. Again, how would bombing a plant that Saddam would claim was producing life-saving drugs have played in the media?

Investigators also found two labs that appeared to be producing animal vaccines. However, according to investigators, all of the equipment was “dual use . . . and easily diverted to produce smallpox or other pathogenic viruses.” Another nearby lab was busily working on cowpox vaccines, with the exact same equipment necessary to create smallpox. One should note that even a thimbleful of smallpox germs would be enough to kill tens of millions. Smallpox, placed in the hands of a terrorist group and released at a sporting event, would devastate a large swath of the United States. It should be noted that each of these facilities was staffed or often visited by persons previously identified by the U.N. as being associated with Saddam’s pre–Desert Storm WMD programs. One facility, often visited by Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha al-Azawi, better known to Western intelligence as Dr. Germ, maintained, according to investigators, a “small” capacity for production of organic agents. When it comes to smallpox, a “small” capacity is all one needs to create global havoc.

Biological weapons were an important and dangerous thrust of Saddam’s WMD program, but far from all that his regime was working on. In 1991, Saddam moved all of his WMD specialists out of government labs and into universities, once again making them off-limits to inspectors and coalition bombers. According to documents discovered after the war, by 1997 the number of university “instructors” doing solely WMD work numbered 3,300, with another 700 to 800 dispatched to WMD-related facilities to help with technical problems. Between 1996 and 2002 — the eve of the invasion — spending on WMD projects increased 40-fold, and the number of specific projects increased from 40 to 3,200. Top officials captured after the collapse of the regime repeatedly told investigators that Saddam’s WMD projects were in overdrive and ready to go into production the moment sanctions were lifted.
Saddam’s minister of military industrialization, Abdullah Mullah al-Huwaysh, stated that Saddam was working to reconstruct all of his WMD programs within five years. In his words, this would have included “a sizable nuclear inventory on hand for immediate use.” Huwaysh also stated that in response to a Saddam inquiry regarding how long it would take to start mass production of chemical weapons, he told the tyrant that mustard-gas production could start within six months, but Sarin and VX would take a bit longer. Other WMD scientists told investigators that they had the materials and equipment to start mustard-gas production in days.

Inevitably, a relaxation of some of the sanctions led Saddam to start thinking again about nuclear weapons. In 1999 he met with his senior nuclear scientists and offered to provide them with whatever they needed, and immediately thereafter new funds began to flow to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). In 2001, Saddam directed a large budget increase for the IAEC and increased the salaries of nuclear scientists ten-fold. He also directed the head of the IAEC to keep nuclear scientists together, and instituted new laws and privileges for IAEC scientists, while also investing in numerous new projects. From 2001 on, Saddam convened frequent meetings with the IAEC to highlight new achievements.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Although Saddam did not possess huge stocks of WMD material when we invaded, he was well on his way to creating an arsenal potent enough to decimate any attacking force. If we had delayed even a couple of months, until Saddam actually had his deadly pathogens and gas weapons, it would have meant the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers. And if those weapons had found their way into terrorist hands, it would have doomed millions. But did Saddam have these kinds of connections? Was he a global terror threat akin to al-Qaeda? The common wisdom says no. The common wisdom is wrong.

SADDAM AND TERROR
In 1999, the top ten graduates of Saddam’s Fedayeen Academy (terrorist training center) were specifically chosen for assignment to London. Once there they were held in readiness for operations anywhere in Europe. A memorandum addressed to Saddam’s son Uday specifically states that these trainees were designated for martyrdom operations. In the same memorandum, outlining “Operation Blessed July,” Uday is briefed on plans for terrorists to be sent to Great Britain and other countries, to begin a campaign of assassinations and bombings. Interestingly, the report states that any Fedayeen terrorists operating in Europe will be provided with “death capsules” for their personal use in case of capture. Besides selecting and training these potential terrorists, the Saddam regime also undertook substantial logistical preparations. A glimpse of these preparations can be seen in the response Saddam received from his intelligence services when he inquired about what weapons were available to arm terrorists in Iraqi embassies. Here is part of the tally:

Romania: Missile launcher and missile

Athens [Greece]: Explosive charges

Vienna [Austria]: Explosive charges, rifles with silencers, hand grenades, and Kalashnikov rifles

Pakistan: Explosive materials (TNT)

India: Plastic-explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases

Thailand: Plastic-explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases

Prague [Czech Republic]: Missile launcher and missile

Turkey: Missile launcher, missile, and pistols with silencers

Sana’a [Yemen]: Missile launcher, missile, plastic explosives, and explosive charges

Baku [Azerbaijan]: American missile launcher, plastic explosives, and booby-trapped suitcases

Beirut [Lebanon]: American missile launcher, plastic explosives, and booby-trapped suitcases

Gulf nations: Explosive material outside the embassies

The memo further states that between 2000 and 2002, explosive materials were transported to many embassies outside of Iraq for “special work.”
Realizing the value of suicide bombers, the regime’s intelligence services, a week after 9/11, sent a letter to Saddam outlining the steps they had taken to recruit bombers: “Division Commands have launched a campaign among their members, supporters, and backers of the Party encouraging them to volunteer in suicide operations, and have them write volunteer statements, preferably in their own blood.” The rest of the memo is a list of the 42 persons who had already signed on to blow themselves up whenever and wherever Saddam wished. The selection and training of suicide bombers became so routine that the regime started scheduling training sessions around the volunteers’ vacation periods from university.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An example of a successful suicide operation is documented in a letter that Fedayeen Saddam headquarters forwarded to Uday Hussein. A woman called Nazah asks for his help in processing her husband’s pension documents. She claims the request is justified because her husband died when “he carried out a suicide mission on 19 July 2000, and exploded himself at the Ibn Sina Hotel during the presence of U.S. and U.K. citizens and officials from Iraqi opposition parties.” She goes on to list some of his other activities that would justify a pension for his family:

Booby-trapped a car in front of the Kurdish Communist Party Headquarters
Detonated a car bomb during the motorcade of Danielle Mitterrand (wife of French president François Mitterrand) in Halsabajah City, which killed 40 enemies
Poisoned opposition-party members on the orders of the intelligence services

Saddam was also a sponsor of state terrorism on a truly impressive scale. One document sent to Saddam lists all the major terrorist groups that his intelligence services are in contact with, how long they have been in the Iraqi fold, and approximately how much support they have received. Most of these organizations also appear on the list of al-Qaeda–linked terrorist groups. Saddam and bin Laden may have loathed each other, but they found common cause in financially supporting, arming, and helping to train groups that are part of the same global terrorist network. One note sent to Saddam presented an account of how many foreign terrorists were currently training in Iraqi centers.

Palestine 38 Egypt 4
Lebanon 10 Libya 1
Tunisia 8 Sudan 18
Syria 10 Eritrea 7
Morocco 3 Unknown 1

In fact, after his 1991 defeat in Operation Desert Storm, Saddam ordered his intelligence services to maintain contact with all terrorist movements in the Arab countries. Captured documents reveal that intelligence-service activities went beyond just maintaining contact. One set of details appears in a report written six weeks after 9/11. It states that Iraq was sending an administrative officer to establish and oversee a terrorist training camp, and lists the equipment being dispatched in the first set of supplies:

15,000 Kalashnikov 7.62-mm rifles
15,000 [SKS] rifles
5,000 Browning pistols
5,000 Markarov pistols
1 high-quality photocopier

The memorandum ends with the names of 52 fighters waiting for training in the camp.

Evidence of Saddam’s continuing interest in and support for global terrorist activities is found in a 2002 annual report of one of the directorates within his intelligence service. It states that, in the year after 9/11, it held 13 meetings for a number of Palestinian and other organizations, including delegations from the Islamic Jihad Movement and the director general of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz (al-Ahwaz is a portion of Iran inhabited largely by Arabs). The list then details the messages various terrorist groups sent to Saddam during the year. The titles of the messages range from simple best wishes on Saddam’s birthday to the following:

Information on the number of Palestinian martyrs killed vs. Zionists killed
Requests for military equipment and for help for the families of suicide bombers
Information on the financial status of various terrorist organizations, volunteers for suicide operations, and rumors of a plan to assassinate Saddam Hussein

The report also notes that among the 699 passports that the intelligence services issued, many were issued to known members of terrorist organizations. Moreover, it states that the intelligence services took four million dinars from their own budgets to finance Palestinian terrorist groups.

The report also provides a list of activities the intelligence services considered “exemplary events,” for example:

Re-equipping and training Palestinian fighters in al-Quds training camps [in Iraq]
Establishing and activating a course to train Arab Liberation Front fighters on martyrdom operations
Establishing fighter schools for Arab volunteers and later for Iraqi volunteers
Re-establishing and re-equipping the military base of the Arab Liberation Front
Training groups from the occupied territories [Palestine] on light weapons in secret 30-day courses

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg of available evidence demonstrating that Saddam posed a dangerous threat to America. There are other reports providing specific information on dozens of terrorist attacks, as well as details of how Iraq helped plan and execute many of them. Moreover, there is also proof of Saddam’s support of Islamic groups that were part of the al-Qaeda network. A good analogy for the links between Saddam and bin Laden is the Cali and Medellín drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national-security concerns to the United States. The two cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market. However, neither cartel was reluctant to cooperate with the other when it came to the pursuit of a common objective — expanding and facilitating their illicit trade. The well-publicized and violent rise of the Medellín cartel temporarily obscured and overshadowed the rise of, and threat posed by, the Cali cartel, in the same way that 9/11 camouflaged the terror threat posed by Saddam. In reality Saddam and bin Laden were operating parallel terror networks aimed at the United States. Bin Laden just has the distinction of having made the first horrendous attack.

Given the evidence, it appears that we removed Saddam’s regime not a moment too soon.

— Jim Lacey is the author of The First Clash and Keep from All Thoughtful Men.

Obama is offended

2011-09-12T05:00:00.000-07:00

Steve Bridges is the guy who imitated George Bush on the Jay Leno Show. He has now started imitating Obama and REALLY does it well. The Administration has tried to put a stop to Bridges’ act because Obama has made it known that he is deeply offended. So do your part to keep the Spender-In-Chief “deeply offended” by passing this around… there might also be some educational content.

Dennis Prager Explains The Thinking of the Left

2011-08-25T08:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bvq1GFXLgg&feature=player_embedded#!

Two faced?

2011-08-09T09:56:00.000-07:00

Sometime within the last three weeks, President Obama talked about how seniors were going to be affected if the debt wasn't increased. He painted pictures of empty mailboxes for the elderly all over the country.
Yesterday I saw a clip of him denouncing the credit rating downgrade, that the USA is a triple A country and can be counted on to pay its debts.
There has to be some hidden factor to reconcile these two statements unless you want to admit that one or both are a lie.
By the way, changing the rate of spending from 4 trillion to 2.4 trillion is not a reduction of debt. 6.4 trillion in debt a few years from now when it's 4 trillion now is not a reduction. It's 60% raise.

Islam's Greatest Invention

2011-08-04T20:45:00.001-07:00

Great quote

2011-07-24T12:30:00.000-07:00

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Statistical Show and Tell

2011-07-13T12:55:00.000-07:00

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

Check this last set of statistics!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is...a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages:

T. Roosevelt...........38%
Taft.......................40%
Wilson ....................52%
Harding..................49%
Coolidge................. 48%
Hoover ...................42%
F. Roosevelt............50%
Truman..................50%
Eisenhower..............57%
Kennedy................30%
Johnson................47%
Nixon....................53%
Ford.....................42%
Carter....................32%
Reagan.................56%
GH Bush...............51%
Clinton ...............39%
GW Bush..............55%

And the winner is:

Obama............... 8%

This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!

That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.So..do you now think we need a change?I'll bet I know what your answer will be.

Re-election Platform

2011-07-08T12:47:00.000-07:00

Could they think it would make him look "cool" to the younger generation? They can now wear shirts to school that say "WTF" with impunity.

How perfectly fitting! Speaks for itself.... I know this is supposed to be the smartest administration ever, but if I were running a campaign with a fairly unpopular incumbent, the last thing I'd do is have a reelection slogan with the initials: WTF.

WTF were you thinking, son?!

Understand the words

2011-07-07T08:32:00.000-07:00

Steve Bridges as President Barack Obama

2011-07-07T08:23:00.000-07:00

Congressional Reform Act of 2011 Please, Continue To Pass It On...

2011-07-01T04:45:00.000-07:00

The 26th amendment(granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only three months and eight days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven took one year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In five days, most people in The United States of America will have this

message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security System immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void, effective with passage of this amendment.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU START TO FIX CONGRESS! If you agree with the above, pass it on.

Let's blame the Jews

2011-06-25T17:40:00.000-07:00

A liberal thinks about those right of center

2011-06-22T15:46:00.000-07:00

A liberal thinks about those right of center© Rob Hood 6-22-11

My friends and I know best
When presented with life's test
The right of center
Surely needs a mentor
Sadly they are such dumb
Under educated scum
They simply have a disease
We refer to as brain freeze
Why can't they just understand
We are just what God has planned
Our IQ's are beyond measure
So are views you must treasure
I'm glad I have a fine mind
Differentiated from your kind.

Sign of the times

2011-06-21T14:32:00.000-07:00

IMHO

2011-04-08T09:32:00.000-07:00

IMHO© Rob Hood 4-8-11
At Toastmasters I need to make a speech
And I'm sure about what I want to preach
I don't want our President
To remain a White House resident
So I feel it's high time to impeach

So, what have we learned in 2,065 years ?

2011-01-14T14:47:00.001-08:00

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be
tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be
curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to
work, instead of living on public assistance."
- Cicero , 55 BC
Evidently, nothing.

Free speech in Europe

2010-11-20T16:13:00.000-08:00

If we had an Italian as President

2010-11-20T11:19:00.001-08:00

TSA, Naked People and My Junk!

2010-11-20T09:29:00.000-08:00

Transparency?

2010-11-20T09:24:00.000-08:00

Human rights travesty

2010-11-20T09:19:00.000-08:00

Contents of the Obama Stimulas Package Revealed

2010-11-18T09:44:00.000-08:00

The Jewish People vs George Soros

2010-11-14T06:18:00.000-08:00

The Jewish People vs George Soros
I spent yesterday evening in the company of a man whose grandfather spent much of the Holocaust dressed in a Nazi uniform. The difference between him and George Soros, is that he used that uniform as a disguise in order to find Jewish refugees and lead them to shelter. And that difference is a profound one. It is the difference between a perpetrator and a rescuer. Between a collaborator and a hero.

Soros did not wear a Nazi uniform, but he might as well have, because he aided in the persecution of the Jews of Europe, without compassion, without guilt and without regret. Various excuses have been made for his actions, and none of them hold the least bit of water.

Yes Soros was only a teenager at the time. So was my father, who nevertheless escaped to join the partisans, rather than accompanying a Nazi officer in his search for Jewish property he could loot. He had no choice? He certainly had a choice. Even in the worst of times, people still can and do make moral choices. And the choice for everyone, for Jews, Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, Frenchmen and so on down the line-- was to collaborate with evil, or to do the right thing.

George Soros made the wrong choice then. As he has made the wrong choice over and over again. And he has never regretted any of them. And the one thing that clearly emerges from that, is that he has no understanding that evil is wrong. That participating in the persecution and murder of Jews is wrong. He didn't know it back then, while the Holocaust was going on. He doesn't know it today, when he helps set up and fund organizations like J Street, whose sole purpose is to help the Muslim terrorists who are murdering Jews today.

The liberal media which is busy defending Soros as a victim of the Holocaust and a survivor should find the bare decency to remain silent for once. To call Soros a Holocaust survivor is an obscenity. Soros was not victimized by the Holocaust. He was never targeted by it. He was on the other side of the line. The side that was pulling the trigger, running the gas chambers and sorting the gold teeth. Soros was not a victim, he was a perpetrator. Yes, he was only a teenager, but we do jail teenagers as accomplices to crimes much milder than that of collaborating in genocide.

Liberal using charges of Anti-Semitism to silence critics of Soros is one of the most profoundly cynical exercises imaginable, by people who routinely mock the idea that their bias again Israel is in any way motivated by Anti-Semitism. It is all the more cynical, because Soros has described himself as growing up in a "Jewish, Anti-Semitic home" and suggested that Jewish behavior causes Anti-Semitism. Defending criticism of a billionaire Anti-Semite as Anti-Semitism is thoroughly surreal. It's an inversion of the meaning of the word that punches a hole through reason and all the way over into the other side.

Soros has funded organizations that actively promoted Anti-Semitic smears against Jews. MoveOn's bulletins have linked to sites like CounterPunch, a site which actually published an article in defense of blood libels. One bulletin linked to pieces which accused Jews of dual loyalty, claimed that a small group of Jewish elites monopolize foreign policy and began with a "special feature" from former Klansman, Senator Byrd. All this is from an organization funded by George Soros. A man so reviled within the Jewish community that his funding for J Street had to be kept secret for fear of a backlash against the entire group.

The media's implication that criticism of Soros is an attack on Jews as a whole is mind-bogglingly false. When even an organization aimed at liberal Jews actually has to hide its Soros funding, it is safe to say that Herr Soros is not representative of the Jewish community. After a failed attempt to scam money out of a Jewish charity in his youth, Soros has avoided Jewish organizations and Jewish causes. J Street is one of those exceptions, only because it is an Anti-Jewish organizations masquerading as a Jewish organization.

Soros has said that he doesn't want to be part of any Jewish national existence, and that the solution to Anti-Semitism is for Jews to "give up on the tribalness". His narrative has always been to blame Anti-Semitism on Jews and on Israel. And frankly that is the essence of what Anti-Semitism is. Blame the victim. And there's every reason for Soros to do that. because he helps the perpetrators. And that seems to have been a lifelong hobby with him.

Soros' father identified with Germans, more than with Jews. Like some of that type, he wanted to be more German, than the Germans. After Nazi Germany fell, George seemed to hold a special animus for the countries that had defeated the Third Reich. His political and economic primarily war targeted America, Europe and Russia. The countries and societies that had destroyed Hitler's dream of world conquest. Whether that is deliberate or not, is not a question I can answer. But if Soros had strongly resented the Allied forces that shut down National Socialism, then his likely course of behavior would be the same one that he has followed. To find weak spots in the system, exploit them to make money and then use that money to bring those societies and countries down.

Over the years Soros has made it very clear that he doesn't like Jews, and doesn't want to be associated with them. This wasn't an aberration that developed during the Holocaust, but runs in his family. His father changed his last name from Schwartz to Soros. His ex-wife has stated that Soros' mother disliked her, because she was "openly Jewish". In his biography, Soros agreed that his ex-wife's Jewishness was the problem. He even referred to his own mother as a "Jewish Anti-Semite". Indeed Soros' mother disliked Jews so much, she ended up converting.

George Soros has not converted, but he considers himself an atheist and like the rest of his family, is hostile to Jews. He has mentioned an "antipathy" to Jewish organizations, one which he dates back to his time delivering deportation orders to Jewish lawyers. At one point he describes his Jewishness as a "secret shame" that required psychoanalysis. While Soros has said that he has no guilt over his Nazi collaboration, he apparently did feel guilt for whatever Jewishness he still felt he had. That is not the attitude of a moral man, but of a man who enjoyed being a Nazi, but hated being Jewish. With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder that Soros acts the way he does.

But having excluded himself from the Jewish community and having waged war against the places and countries where Jews are secure-- having even funded Anti-Semitic organizations, he has absolutely no right to try and hide from criticism over his political activities by using his front groups to denounce critics as Anti-Semitic. Certainly not by claiming to be a Holocaust survivor, when he was actually a collaborator. His front groups have produced and circulated materials that accused American Jews of secret conspiracies, that certainly meet the same test that his front groups are now using to argue that Beck is engaging in Anti-Semitism.

But Soros is never held to the standards of the people he wages war on. Soros destroys the savings of British pensioners, while using the money to fund left wing groups which claim to care about the plight of the poor. Now left wing groups which promote Anti-Semitism are accusing Soros critics of being Anti-Semitic. To them it's just a word. Another weapon they can use to promote their agenda. To us however it's not just a word. It's a reality. It's a reality that Jews have been living with for a very long time now.

For thousands of years, the Jewish people have survived persecution, outlived genocide, and every form of oppression under the sun. And during all that time, there have been Jewish survivors and heroes, and collaborators as well. The upcoming holiday of Chanukah is the story of Jews who refused to collaborate. On the other hand, the story of Soros is the story of those who brought pigs on altars. Who hated their Jewishness and eagerly sought to join with the oppressors. Soros is only one of that number. But it is not the collaborators or the traitors who continue on. They die and turn to dust. Their malice may be great and the harm they cause terrible, but like all mortals, they still perish and pass away. But the Nation of Israel, like the lights of the Menorah, go on.

Parallels of Lincoln and Obama .....

2010-10-21T18:36:00.001-07:00

I'm sure most of us have read the so-called comparison of Lincoln and Kennedy, but did you ever consider the relationship between Obama and Lincoln? You might be surprised.

Parallels of Abraham Lincoln and B. H. Obama:

1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration. Obama used the same Bible.

2. Lincoln came from Illinois . Obama comes from Illinois .

3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature. Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.

4. Lincoln had much experience before becoming President. Obama had very little experience before becoming President.

5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration. Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.

6. Lincoln was a skinny lawyer. Obama is a skinny lawyer.

7. Lincoln was a Republican. Obama is a skinny lawyer.

8. Lincoln was in the United States military. Obama is a skinny lawyer.

9. Lincoln believed in everyone carrying their own weight. Obama is a skinny lawyer.

10. Lincoln did not waste taxpayers' money on personal enjoyments. Obama is a skinny lawyer.

11. Lincoln was highly respected. Obama is a skinny lawyer.

12. Lincoln was born in the United States . Obama is a skinny lawyer.

13. Lincoln was honest, so honest he was called Honest Abe. Obama is a skinny lawyer.

14. Lincoln saved the United States . Obama is a skinny lawyer.

Barney Frank, Then and Now

2010-10-13T10:08:00.000-07:00

by Greg Mankiw

A news story from 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry....

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

A news story from yesterday:

In a sharp-edged debut debate, US Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat, and Sean Bielat, his Republican challenger, squared off yesterday over national security, illegal immigration, and the roots of the mortgage crisis....

Bielat, a former Marine officer from Brookline, said Frank had contributed to the downfall and subsequent recession by supporting lenient lending standards for prospective home buyers.

“He has long been an advocate for extending homeownership, even to those who couldn’t afford it, regardless of the cost to the American people,’’ said Bielat, 35.

Frank, a leading liberal who has represented the state’s Fourth Congressional District for nearly 30 years and became chairman of the House Financial Services Committee in 2007, said he and other Democrats fought to curb predatory lending practices before the recession but were thwarted by Republicans. He said he had supported efforts to help low-income families rent homes, rather than buy them.

“Low-income home ownership has been a mistake, and I have been a consistent critic of it,’’ said Frank, 70. Republicans, he said, were principally responsible for failing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants the government seized in September 2008.

President Obama Quotes Jimi Hendrix

2010-09-07T05:52:00.000-07:00

From Little Green Footballs
Right wingers are getting all huffy about President Obama’s off the cuff line, but this is Obama at his best. Our quote of the day, by far:

They talk about me like a dog.

In case you didn’t recognize the quote (and I don’t know if Obama really intended it), it’s a verbatim line from Jimi Hendrix’s ode to being a total freak, “Stone Free.”

Dr Laura

2010-08-31T09:14:00.000-07:00

To Dr Laura I say scoot
You make me tear my hairs out at the root
When I hear you I shudder
And I always mutter
Wishing that you could be rendered mute

Joys of Muslim Women

2010-08-26T10:04:00.000-07:00

This was written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim. This is not heresy, and it will scare you.

Joys of Muslim Women by Nonie Darwish
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

Even though a woman is abused, she can not obtain a divorce.
To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and the man does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the Western World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending US and Canadian Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened US and Canadian women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
Ripping the West in Two. Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.

She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.

Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to the US in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza

When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. and Canada to elect the President or Prime Minister by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA and Canada , Dearborn Mich. is one, Brampton , Ontario is another and there are others...

I think everyone in the U.S. and Canada should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. the peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While the US and Canada are getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on the US and Canada..

SALT IN THE WOUND

2010-08-25T14:08:00.000-07:00

HARRY REID TAKES FUNDS FROM A BROTHEL.

2010-08-22T06:11:00.000-07:00

So hail to thee, Harry Reid
In November we will throw you out with speed
I knew you were a whore
Right down to the core
But I never knew that pimping was your creed

Michael Savage - The Truth Shall Set You Free

2010-08-21T08:20:00.001-07:00

The Iranian bomb - The song

2010-08-21T08:08:00.000-07:00

I Want Your Money

2010-08-12T05:08:00.000-07:00

Economic terms

2010-08-11T10:24:00.001-07:00

‎" A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Obama loses his".
-Michael Reagan

Dr. Charles Krauthammer on Obama

2010-08-11T01:31:00.000-07:00

Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment.. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views . He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free....

Summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid!

5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world.. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future... We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have.. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.

Scottish foreign policy

2010-08-11T01:16:00.000-07:00

Jimmy MacDonald, a City Councillor from Glasgow, was asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists.
His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.

HIS STATEMENT :

'If hooking up one raghead terrorist's testicles to a car battery gets the truth out of the lying little camelshagger - to save just one Scottish soldier's life, then I have only three things to say, Red is positive, Black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.'

A new, updated, Dr. Seuss book.

2010-07-31T19:17:00.000-07:00

I do not like this Uncle Sam,

I do not like his health care scam.

I do not like these dirty crooks,

or how they lie and cook the books.

I do not like when Congress steals,

I do not like their secret deals.

I do not like this speaker, Nan ,

I do not like this 'YES WE CAN.'

I do not like this spending spree,

I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.

I do not like your smug replies,

when I complain about your lies.

I do not like this kind of hope.

I do not like it, nope, nope, nope!

Political signage

2010-06-29T16:11:00.000-07:00

The Runaway General

2010-06-28T05:11:00.000-07:00

by Michael Hastings
Jun 22, 2010 10:00 AM EDT

This article appears in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010, on newsstands Friday, June 25.

'How'd I get screwed into going to this dinner?" demands Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It's a Thursday night in mid-April, and the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan is sitting in a four-star suite at the Hôtel Westminster in Paris. He's in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies – to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany's president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.

"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.

McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.

"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"

McChrystal gives him the middle finger.

[asset]

The general stands and looks around the suite that his traveling staff of 10 has converted into a full-scale operations center. The tables are crowded with silver Panasonic Toughbooks, and blue cables crisscross the hotel's thick carpet, hooked up to satellite dishes to provide encrypted phone and e-mail communications. Dressed in off-the-rack civilian casual – blue tie, button-down shirt, dress slacks – McChrystal is way out of his comfort zone. Paris, as one of his advisers says, is the "most anti-McChrystal city you can imagine." The general hates fancy restaurants, rejecting any place with candles on the tables as too "Gucci." He prefers Bud Light Lime (his favorite beer) to Bordeaux, Talladega Nights (his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc Godard. Besides, the public eye has never been a place where McChrystal felt comfortable: Before President Obama put him in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive black ops.

"What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn. The city has been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone, calling into question the general's assurances that he can wrest it from the Taliban.

"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.

McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice.

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

With that, he's out the door.

"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a speech he is giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy. The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict. Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001. Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal. It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve. The theory essentially rebrands the military, expanding its authority (and its funding) to encompass the diplomatic and political sides of warfare: Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps. In 2006, after Gen. David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his "surge" in Iraq, it quickly gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists, military officers and civilian officials. Nicknamed "COINdinistas" for their cultish zeal, this influential cadre believed the doctrine would be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All they needed was a general with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it.

As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the same fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out how your enemy operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody else, then take the fuckers out. After arriving in Afghanistan last June, the general conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn't send another 40,000 troops – swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half – we were in danger of "mission failure." The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was determined to kick the president's ass.

[asset]

Last fall, with his top general calling for more troops, Obama launched a three-month review to re-evaluate the strategy in Afghanistan. "I found that time painful," McChrystal tells me in one of several lengthy interviews. "I was selling an unsellable position." For the general, it was a crash course in Beltway politics – a battle that pitted him against experienced Washington insiders like Vice President Biden, who argued that a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan would plunge America into a military quagmire without weakening international terrorist networks. "The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.

In the end, however, McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted. On December 1st, in a speech at West Point, the president laid out all the reasons why fighting the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea: It's expensive; we're in an economic crisis; a decade-long commitment would sap American power; Al Qaeda has shifted its base of operations to Pakistan. Then, without ever using the words "victory" or "win," Obama announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, almost as many as McChrystal had requested. The president had thrown his weight, however hesitantly, behind the counterinsurgency crowd.

Today, as McChrystal gears up for an offensive in southern Afghanistan, the prospects for any kind of success look bleak. In June, the death toll for U.S. troops passed 1,000, and the number of IEDs has doubled. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile. The biggest military operation of the year – a ferocious offensive that began in February to retake the southern town of Marja – continues to drag on, prompting McChrystal himself to refer to it as a "bleeding ulcer." In June, Afghanistan officially outpaced Vietnam as the longest war in American history – and Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it's precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn't want.

Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm. "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."

[asset]

The night after his speech in Paris, McChrystal and his staff head to Kitty O'Shea's, an Irish pub catering to tourists, around the corner from the hotel. His wife, Annie, has joined him for a rare visit: Since the Iraq War began in 2003, she has seen her husband less than 30 days a year. Though it is his and Annie's 33rd wedding anniversary, McChrystal has invited his inner circle along for dinner and drinks at the "least Gucci" place his staff could find. His wife isn't surprised. "He once took me to a Jack in the Box when I was dressed in formalwear," she says with a laugh.

The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority. After arriving in Kabul last summer, Team America set about changing the culture of the International Security Assistance Force, as the NATO-led mission is known. (U.S. soldiers had taken to deriding ISAF as short for "I Suck at Fighting" or "In Sandals and Flip-Flops.") McChrystal banned alcohol on base, kicked out Burger King and other symbols of American excess, expanded the morning briefing to include thousands of officers and refashioned the command center into a Situational Awareness Room, a free-flowing information hub modeled after Mayor Mike Bloomberg's offices in New York. He also set a manic pace for his staff, becoming legendary for sleeping four hours a night, running seven miles each morning, and eating one meal a day. (In the month I spend around the general, I witness him eating only once.) It's a kind of superhuman narrative that has built up around him, a staple in almost every media profile, as if the ability to go without sleep and food translates into the possibility of a man single-handedly winning the war.

By midnight at Kitty O'Shea's, much of Team America is completely shitfaced. Two officers do an Irish jig mixed with steps from a traditional Afghan wedding dance, while McChrystal's top advisers lock arms and sing a slurred song of their own invention. "Afghanistan!" they bellow. "Afghanistan!" They call it their Afghanistan song.

McChrystal steps away from the circle, observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."

The assembled men may look and sound like a bunch of combat veterans letting off steam, but in fact this tight-knit group represents the most powerful force shaping U.S. policy in Afghanistan. While McChrystal and his men are in indisputable command of all military aspects of the war, there is no equivalent position on the diplomatic or political side. Instead, an assortment of administration players compete over the Afghan portfolio: U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not to mention 40 or so other coalition ambassadors and a host of talking heads who try to insert themselves into the mess, from John Kerry to John McCain. This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan. "It jeopardizes the mission," says Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who supports McChrystal. "The military cannot by itself create governance reform."

Part of the problem is structural: The Defense Department budget exceeds $600 billion a year, while the State Department receives only $50 billion. But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle. "Hillary had Stan's back during the strategic review," says an adviser. "She said, 'If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.' "

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He's a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can't just have someone yanking on shit."

[asset]

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

By far the most crucial – and strained – relationship is between McChrystal and Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador. According to those close to the two men, Eikenberry – a retired three-star general who served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2005 – can't stand that his former subordinate is now calling the shots. He's also furious that McChrystal, backed by NATO's allies, refused to put Eikenberry in the pivotal role of viceroy in Afghanistan, which would have made him the diplomatic equivalent of the general. The job instead went to British Ambassador Mark Sedwill – a move that effectively increased McChrystal's influence over diplomacy by shutting out a powerful rival. "In reality, that position needs to be filled by an American for it to have weight," says a U.S. official familiar with the negotiations.

The relationship was further strained in January, when a classified cable that Eikenberry wrote was leaked to The New York Times. The cable was as scathing as it was prescient. The ambassador offered a brutal critique of McChrystal's strategy, dismissed President Hamid Karzai as "not an adequate strategic partner," and cast doubt on whether the counterinsurgency plan would be "sufficient" to deal with Al Qaeda. "We will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves," Eikenberry warned, "short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos."

McChrystal and his team were blindsided by the cable. "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before," says McChrystal, who adds that he felt "betrayed" by the leak. "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' "

The most striking example of McChrystal's usurpation of diplomatic policy is his handling of Karzai. It is McChrystal, not diplomats like Eikenberry or Holbrooke, who enjoys the best relationship with the man America is relying on to lead Afghanistan. The doctrine of counterinsurgency requires a credible government, and since Karzai is not considered credible by his own people, McChrystal has worked hard to make him so. Over the past few months, he has accompanied the president on more than 10 trips around the country, standing beside him at political meetings, or shuras, in Kandahar. In February, the day before the doomed offensive in Marja, McChrystal even drove over to the president's palace to get him to sign off on what would be the largest military operation of the year. Karzai's staff, however, insisted that the president was sleeping off a cold and could not be disturbed. After several hours of haggling, McChrystal finally enlisted the aid of Afghanistan's defense minister, who persuaded Karzai's people to wake the president from his nap.

[asset]

This is one of the central flaws with McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy: The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader we've backed – a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about in his cable. Even Team McChrystal privately acknowledges that Karzai is a less-than-ideal partner. "He's been locked up in his palace the past year," laments one of the general's top advisers. At times, Karzai himself has actively undermined McChrystal's desire to put him in charge. During a recent visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Karzai met three U.S. soldiers who had been wounded in Uruzgan province. "General," he called out to McChrystal, "I didn't even know we were fighting in Uruzgan!"

Growing up as a military brat, McChrystal exhibited the mixture of brilliance and cockiness that would follow him throughout his career. His father fought in Korea and Vietnam, retiring as a two-star general, and his four brothers all joined the armed services. Moving around to different bases, McChrystal took solace in baseball, a sport in which he made no pretense of hiding his superiority: In Little League, he would call out strikes to the crowd before whipping a fastball down the middle.

McChrystal entered West Point in 1972, when the U.S. military was close to its all-time low in popularity. His class was the last to graduate before the academy started to admit women. The "Prison on the Hudson," as it was known then, was a potent mix of testosterone, hooliganism and reactionary patriotism. Cadets repeatedly trashed the mess hall in food fights, and birthdays were celebrated with a tradition called "rat fucking," which often left the birthday boy outside in the snow or mud, covered in shaving cream. "It was pretty out of control," says Lt. Gen. David Barno, a classmate who went on to serve as the top commander in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005. The class, filled with what Barno calls "huge talent" and "wild-eyed teenagers with a strong sense of idealism," also produced Gen. Ray Odierno, the current commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The son of a general, McChrystal was also a ringleader of the campus dissidents – a dual role that taught him how to thrive in a rigid, top-down environment while thumbing his nose at authority every chance he got. He accumulated more than 100 hours of demerits for drinking, partying and insubordination – a record that his classmates boasted made him a "century man." One classmate, who asked not to be named, recalls finding McChrystal passed out in the shower after downing a case of beer he had hidden under the sink. The troublemaking almost got him kicked out, and he spent hours subjected to forced marches in the Area, a paved courtyard where unruly cadets were disciplined. "I'd come visit, and I'd end up spending most of my time in the library, while Stan was in the Area," recalls Annie, who began dating McChrystal in 1973.

McChrystal wound up ranking 298 out of a class of 855, a serious underachievement for a man widely regarded as brilliant. His most compelling work was extracurricular: As managing editor of The Pointer, the West Point literary magazine, McChrystal wrote seven short stories that eerily foreshadow many of the issues he would confront in his career. In one tale, a fictional officer complains about the difficulty of training foreign troops to fight; in another, a 19-year-old soldier kills a boy he mistakes for a terrorist. In "Brinkman's Note," a piece of suspense fiction, the unnamed narrator appears to be trying to stop a plot to assassinate the president. It turns out, however, that the narrator himself is the assassin, and he's able to infiltrate the White House: "The President strode in smiling. From the right coat pocket of the raincoat I carried, I slowly drew forth my 32-caliber pistol. In Brinkman's failure, I had succeeded."

After graduation, 2nd Lt. Stanley McChrystal entered an Army that was all but broken in the wake of Vietnam. "We really felt we were a peacetime generation," he recalls. "There was the Gulf War, but even that didn't feel like that big of a deal." So McChrystal spent his career where the action was: He enrolled in Special Forces school and became a regimental commander of the 3rd Ranger Battalion in 1986. It was a dangerous position, even in peacetime – nearly two dozen Rangers were killed in training accidents during the Eighties. It was also an unorthodox career path: Most soldiers who want to climb the ranks to general don't go into the Rangers. Displaying a penchant for transforming systems he considers outdated, McChrystal set out to revolutionize the training regime for the Rangers. He introduced mixed martial arts, required every soldier to qualify with night-vision goggles on the rifle range and forced troops to build up their endurance with weekly marches involving heavy backpacks.

In the late 1990s, McChrystal shrewdly improved his inside game, spending a year at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and then at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he co-authored a treatise on the merits and drawbacks of humanitarian interventionism. But as he moved up through the ranks, McChrystal relied on the skills he had learned as a troublemaking kid at West Point: knowing precisely how far he could go in a rigid military hierarchy without getting tossed out. Being a highly intelligent badass, he discovered, could take you far – especially in the political chaos that followed September 11th. "He was very focused," says Annie. "Even as a young officer he seemed to know what he wanted to do. I don't think his personality has changed in all these years."

By some accounts, McChrystal's career should have been over at least two times by now. As Pentagon spokesman during the invasion of Iraq, the general seemed more like a White House mouthpiece than an up-and-coming commander with a reputation for speaking his mind. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous "stuff happens" remark during the looting of Baghdad, McChrystal backed him up. A few days later, he echoed the president's Mission Accomplished gaffe by insisting that major combat operations in Iraq were over. But it was during his next stint – overseeing the military's most elite units, including the Rangers, Navy Seals and Delta Force – that McChrystal took part in a cover-up that would have destroyed the career of a lesser man.

After Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former-NFL-star-turned-Ranger, was accidentally killed by his own troops in Afghanistan in April 2004, McChrystal took an active role in creating the impression that Tillman had died at the hands of Taliban fighters. He signed off on a falsified recommendation for a Silver Star that suggested Tillman had been killed by enemy fire. (McChrystal would later claim he didn't read the recommendation closely enough – a strange excuse for a commander known for his laserlike attention to minute details.) A week later, McChrystal sent a memo up the chain of command, specifically warning that President Bush should avoid mentioning the cause of Tillman's death. "If the circumstances of Corporal Tillman's death become public," he wrote, it could cause "public embarrassment" for the president.

"The false narrative, which McChrystal clearly helped construct, diminished Pat's true actions," wrote Tillman's mother, Mary, in her book Boots on the Ground by Dusk. McChrystal got away with it, she added, because he was the "golden boy" of Rumsfeld and Bush, who loved his willingness to get things done, even if it included bending the rules or skipping the chain of command. Nine days after Tillman's death, McChrystal was promoted to major general.

Two years later, in 2006, McChrystal was tainted by a scandal involving detainee abuse and torture at Camp Nama in Iraq. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, prisoners at the camp were subjected to a now-familiar litany of abuse: stress positions, being dragged naked through the mud. McChrystal was not disciplined in the scandal, even though an interrogator at the camp reported seeing him inspect the prison multiple times. But the experience was so unsettling to McChrystal that he tried to prevent detainee operations from being placed under his command in Afghanistan, viewing them as a "political swamp," according to a U.S. official. In May 2009, as McChrystal prepared for his confirmation hearings, his staff prepared him for hard questions about Camp Nama and the Tillman cover-up. But the scandals barely made a ripple in Congress, and McChrystal was soon on his way back to Kabul to run the war in Afghanistan.

The media, to a large extent, have also given McChrystal a pass on both controversies. Where Gen. Petraeus is kind of a dweeb, a teacher's pet with a Ranger's tab, McChrystal is a snake-eating rebel, a "Jedi" commander, as Newsweek called him. He didn't care when his teenage son came home with blue hair and a mohawk. He speaks his mind with a candor rare for a high-ranking official. He asks for opinions, and seems genuinely interested in the response. He gets briefings on his iPod and listens to books on tape. He carries a custom-made set of nunchucks in his convoy engraved with his name and four stars, and his itinerary often bears a fresh quote from Bruce Lee. ("There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.") He went out on dozens of nighttime raids during his time in Iraq, unprecedented for a top commander, and turned up on missions unannounced, with almost no entourage. "The fucking lads love Stan McChrystal," says a British officer who serves in Kabul. "You'd be out in Somewhere, Iraq, and someone would take a knee beside you, and a corporal would be like 'Who the fuck is that?' And it's fucking Stan McChrystal."

It doesn't hurt that McChrystal was also extremely successful as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, the elite forces that carry out the government's darkest ops. During the Iraq surge, his team killed and captured thousands of insurgents, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. "JSOC was a killing machine," says Maj. Gen. Mayville, his chief of operations. McChrystal was also open to new ways of killing. He systematically mapped out terrorist networks, targeting specific insurgents and hunting them down – often with the help of cyberfreaks traditionally shunned by the military. "The Boss would find the 24-year-old kid with a nose ring, with some fucking brilliant degree from MIT, sitting in the corner with 16 computer monitors humming," says a Special Forces commando who worked with McChrystal in Iraq and now serves on his staff in Kabul. "He'd say, 'Hey – you fucking muscleheads couldn't find lunch without help. You got to work together with these guys.' "

Even in his new role as America's leading evangelist for counterinsurgency, McChrystal retains the deep-seated instincts of a terrorist hunter. To put pressure on the Taliban, he has upped the number of Special Forces units in Afghanistan from four to 19. "You better be out there hitting four or five targets tonight," McChrystal will tell a Navy Seal he sees in the hallway at headquarters. Then he'll add, "I'm going to have to scold you in the morning for it, though." In fact, the general frequently finds himself apologizing for the disastrous consequences of counterinsurgency. In the first four months of this year, NATO forces killed some 90 civilians, up 76 percent from the same period in 2009 – a record that has created tremendous resentment among the very population that COIN theory is intent on winning over. In February, a Special Forces night raid ended in the deaths of two pregnant Afghan women and allegations of a cover-up, and in April, protests erupted in Kandahar after U.S. forces accidentally shot up a bus, killing five Afghans. "We've shot an amazing number of people," McChrystal recently conceded.

Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. "For a while," says one U.S. official, "the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a 'civ cas' incident." The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win an award for: There's talk of creating a new medal for "courageous restraint," a buzzword that's unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-ho culture of the U.S. military.

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."

In March, McChrystal traveled to Combat Outpost JFM – a small encampment on the outskirts of Kandahar – to confront such accusations from the troops directly. It was a typically bold move by the general. Only two days earlier, he had received an e-mail from Israel Arroyo, a 25-year-old staff sergeant who asked McChrystal to go on a mission with his unit. "I am writing because it was said you don't care about the troops and have made it harder to defend ourselves," Arroyo wrote.

Within hours, McChrystal responded personally: "I'm saddened by the accusation that I don't care about soldiers, as it is something I suspect any soldier takes both personally and professionally – at least I do. But I know perceptions depend upon your perspective at the time, and I respect that every soldier's view is his own." Then he showed up at Arroyo's outpost and went on a foot patrol with the troops – not some bullshit photo-op stroll through a market, but a real live operation in a dangerous war zone.

Six weeks later, just before McChrystal returned from Paris, the general received another e-mail from Arroyo. A 23-year-old corporal named Michael Ingram – one of the soldiers McChrystal had gone on patrol with – had been killed by an IED a day earlier. It was the third man the 25-member platoon had lost in a year, and Arroyo was writing to see if the general would attend Ingram's memorial service. "He started to look up to you," Arroyo wrote. McChrystal said he would try to make it down to pay his respects as soon as possible.

The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo's platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram's death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal's new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. "These were abandoned houses," fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. "Nobody was coming back to live in them."

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. "Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force," the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that's like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won't have to make arrests. "Does that make any fucking sense?" asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. "We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"

The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they've been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. "Fuck, when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun on," says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. "I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they're all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don't understand it themselves. But we're fucking losing this thing."

McChrystal and his team show up the next day. Underneath a tent, the general has a 45-minute discussion with some two dozen soldiers. The atmosphere is tense. "I ask you what's going on in your world, and I think it's important for you all to understand the big picture as well," McChrystal begins. "How's the company doing? You guys feeling sorry for yourselves? Anybody? Anybody feel like you're losing?" McChrystal says.

"Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir," says Hicks.

McChrystal nods. "Strength is leading when you just don't want to lead," he tells the men. "You're leading by example. That's what we do. Particularly when it's really, really hard, and it hurts inside." Then he spends 20 minutes talking about counterinsurgency, diagramming his concepts and principles on a whiteboard. He makes COIN seem like common sense, but he's careful not to bullshit the men. "We are knee-deep in the decisive year," he tells them. The Taliban, he insists, no longer has the initiative – "but I don't think we do, either." It's similar to the talk he gave in Paris, but it's not winning any hearts and minds among the soldiers. "This is the philosophical part that works with think tanks," McChrystal tries to joke. "But it doesn't get the same reception from infantry companies."

During the question-and-answer period, the frustration boils over. The soldiers complain about not being allowed to use lethal force, about watching insurgents they detain be freed for lack of evidence. They want to be able to fight – like they did in Iraq, like they had in Afghanistan before McChrystal. "We aren't putting fear into the Taliban," one soldier says.

"Winning hearts and minds in COIN is a coldblooded thing," McChrystal says, citing an oft-repeated maxim that you can't kill your way out of Afghanistan. "The Russians killed 1 million Afghans, and that didn't work."

"I'm not saying go out and kill everybody, sir," the soldier persists. "You say we've stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don't believe that's true in this area. The more we pull back, the more we restrain ourselves, the stronger it's getting."

"I agree with you," McChrystal says. "In this area, we've not made progress, probably. You have to show strength here, you have to use fire. What I'm telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?"

A soldier complains that under the rules, any insurgent who doesn't have a weapon is immediately assumed to be a civilian. "That's the way this game is," McChrystal says. "It's complex. I can't just decide: It's shirts and skins, and we'll kill all the shirts."

As the discussion ends, McChrystal seems to sense that he hasn't succeeded at easing the men's anger. He makes one last-ditch effort to reach them, acknowledging the death of Cpl. Ingram. "There's no way I can make that easier," he tells them. "No way I can pretend it won't hurt. No way I can tell you not to feel that. . . . I will tell you, you're doing a great job. Don't let the frustration get to you." The session ends with no clapping, and no real resolution. McChrystal may have sold President Obama on counterinsurgency, but many of his own men aren't buying it.

When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal's side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn't hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France's nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. "Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan," he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. "It's all very cynical, politically," says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. "Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there's nothing for us there."

In mid-May, two weeks after visiting the troops in Kandahar, McChrystal travels to the White House for a high-level visit by Hamid Karzai. It is a triumphant moment for the general, one that demonstrates he is very much in command – both in Kabul and in Washington. In the East Room, which is packed with journalists and dignitaries, President Obama sings the praises of Karzai. The two leaders talk about how great their relationship is, about the pain they feel over civilian casualties. They mention the word "progress" 16 times in under an hour. But there is no mention of victory. Still, the session represents the most forceful commitment that Obama has made to McChrystal's strategy in months. "There is no denying the progress that the Afghan people have made in recent years – in education, in health care and economic development," the president says. "As I saw in the lights across Kabul when I landed – lights that would not have been visible just a few years earlier."

It is a disconcerting observation for Obama to make. During the worst years in Iraq, when the Bush administration had no real progress to point to, officials used to offer up the exact same evidence of success. "It was one of our first impressions," one GOP official said in 2006, after landing in Baghdad at the height of the sectarian violence. "So many lights shining brightly." So it is to the language of the Iraq War that the Obama administration has turned – talk of progress, of city lights, of metrics like health care and education. Rhetoric that just a few years ago they would have mocked. "They are trying to manipulate perceptions because there is no definition of victory – because victory is not even defined or recognizable," says Celeste Ward, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation who served as a political adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq in 2006. "That's the game we're in right now. What we need, for strategic purposes, is to create the perception that we didn't get run off. The facts on the ground are not great, and are not going to become great in the near future."

But facts on the ground, as history has proven, offer little deterrent to a military determined to stay the course. Even those closest to McChrystal know that the rising anti-war sentiment at home doesn't begin to reflect how deeply fucked up things are in Afghanistan. "If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," a senior adviser to McChrystal says. Such realism, however, doesn't prevent advocates of counterinsurgency from dreaming big: Instead of beginning to withdraw troops next year, as Obama promised, the military hopes to ramp up its counterinsurgency campaign even further. "There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here," a senior military official in Kabul tells me.

Back in Afghanistan, less than a month after the White House meeting with Karzai and all the talk of "progress," McChrystal is hit by the biggest blow to his vision of counterinsurgency. Since last year, the Pentagon had been planning to launch a major military operation this summer in Kandahar, the country's second-largest city and the Taliban's original home base. It was supposed to be a decisive turning point in the war – the primary reason for the troop surge that McChrystal wrested from Obama late last year. But on June 10th, acknowledging that the military still needs to lay more groundwork, the general announced that he is postponing the offensive until the fall. Rather than one big battle, like Fallujah or Ramadi, U.S. troops will implement what McChrystal calls a "rising tide of security." The Afghan police and army will enter Kandahar to attempt to seize control of neighborhoods, while the U.S. pours $90 million of aid into the city to win over the civilian population.

Even proponents of counterinsurgency are hard-pressed to explain the new plan. "This isn't a classic operation," says a U.S. military official. "It's not going to be Black Hawk Down. There aren't going to be doors kicked in." Other U.S. officials insist that doors are going to be kicked in, but that it's going to be a kinder, gentler offensive than the disaster in Marja. "The Taliban have a jackboot on the city," says a military official. "We have to remove them, but we have to do it in a way that doesn't alienate the population." When Vice President Biden was briefed on the new plan in the Oval Office, insiders say he was shocked to see how much it mirrored the more gradual plan of counterterrorism that he advocated last fall. "This looks like CT-plus!" he said, according to U.S. officials familiar with the meeting.

Whatever the nature of the new plan, the delay underscores the fundamental flaws of counterinsurgency. After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. "A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we're picking winners and losers" – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge.

Quote of America from the Czech Republic

2010-06-15T04:51:00.000-07:00

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president."

"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Hollywood Villains

2010-06-13T09:04:00.000-07:00

New Obama Chamberlain button

2010-06-07T17:33:00.001-07:00

Under Obamacare

2010-06-06T06:09:00.000-07:00

Bribery In Black and White

2010-06-06T06:04:00.001-07:00

Clean Your Plate!

2010-06-06T05:41:00.000-07:00

We con the world (with lyrics)

2010-06-05T06:01:00.000-07:00

Sing along with the lyrics.

There comes a time
When we need to make a show
For the world, the Web and CNN
There's no people dying,
so the best that we can do
Is create the greatest bluff of all

We must go on pretending day by day
That in Gaza, there's crisis, hunger and plague
Coz the billion bucks in aid won't buy their basic needs
Like some cheese and missiles for the kids

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
With guns and our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

Ooooh, we'll stab them at heart
They are soldiers, no one cares
We are small, and we took some pictures with doves
As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand
So we will always gain the upper hand

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
we're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

If Islam and terror brighten up your mood
But you worry that it may not look so good
Well well well well don't you realize
You just gotta call yourself
An activist for peace and human aid

We'll make the world
Abandon reason
We'll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

We con the world
We con the people
We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV
We con the world (Bruce: we con the world...)
We con the people (Bruce: we con the people...)
We'll make them all believe the IDF is Jack the Ripper
We are peaceful travelers
We're waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV
The truth will never find its way to your TV

Steve Wynn (Mr. Las Vegas)

2010-06-02T20:01:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The 3 classes of American Business

2010-06-02T10:02:00.000-07:00

Congressman Tom McClintock Tells Mexico To Butt Out

2010-05-30T10:32:00.000-07:00

Thomas Jefferson's Prophetic Wisdom

2010-05-27T05:52:00.000-07:00

The Arizona immigration law

2010-05-26T19:47:00.000-07:00

State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2010
SENATE BILL 1070
AS AMENDED BY HOUSE BILL 2162
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT - For Reference Purposes Only
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Intent
The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.
Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:
ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification
A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY MONETARY OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED, THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED.
D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL OBTAIN JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE SECURELY TRANSPORTING AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES TO A POINT OF TRANSFER THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.
E. IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:
1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS, LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
3. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
4. PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373 AND 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1644.
G THIS SECTION DOES NOT IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 (P.L. 109-13, DIVISION B; 119 STAT. 302), INCLUDING THE USE OF A RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION CHIP.
H. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS, INCLUDING 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 1373 AND 1644, TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
OF NOT LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
I. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION H OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
J. THE COURT MAY AWARD COURT COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO ANY PERSON OR ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT PREVAILS BY AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
K. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
L. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1509, to read:
13-1509. Willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document; assessment; exception; authenticated records; classification
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:
1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
C. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
D. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE, PROBATION, PARDON, COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE, OR RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT ON ANY BASIS EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 31-233, SUBSECTION A OR B UNTIL THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COURT HAS BEEN SERVED OR THE PERSON IS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 41-1604.07.
E. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS.
F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
G. ANY RECORD THAT RELATES TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF A PERSON IS ADMISSIBLE IN ANY COURT WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION OR TESTIMONY
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
FROM A CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS IF THE RECORD IS CERTIFIED AS AUTHENTIC BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE RECORD.
H. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT THE MAXIMUM FINE IS ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND FOR A FIRST VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION: THE COURT SHALL NOT SENTENCE THE PERSON TO MORE THAN TWENTY DAYS IN JAIL AND FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION THE COURT SHALL NOT SENTENCE THE PERSON TO MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS IN JAIL.
Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions
A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.
C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this section:
1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.
D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.
E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW.
F. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Family member" means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree.
2. "Procurement of transportation" means any participation in or facilitation of transportation and includes:
(a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel arrangement services or money transmission services.
(b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification, or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as defined in section 13-2322.
3. "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.
Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:
13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions
A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
D. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
E. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:
1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
F. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
G. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE EMPLOYED.
2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).
13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle impoundment; exception; classification
A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO:
1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF THE ALIEN IN THE UNITED STATES, IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO, ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.
C. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
D. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:
1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
E. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKER ACTING IN THE WORKER'S OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR A PERSON WHO IS ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A FIRST RESPONDER, AN AMBULANCE ATTENDANT OR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN AND WHO IS TRANSPORTING OR MOVING AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE PURSUANT TO TITLE 36, CHAPTER 21.1.
F. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.
Sec. 6. Section 13-3883, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
13-3883. Arrest by officer without warrant
A. A peace officer, without a warrant, MAY arrest a person if THE OFFICER has probable cause to believe:
1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the felony.
2. A misdemeanor has been committed in THE OFFICER'S presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.
3. The person to be arrested has been involved in a traffic accident and violated any criminal section of title 28, and that such violation occurred prior to or immediately following such traffic accident.
4. A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense. A person arrested under this paragraph is eligible for release under section 13-3903.
5. THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
B. A peace officer may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of any traffic law committed in the officer's presence and may serve a copy of the traffic complaint for any alleged civil or criminal traffic violation. A peace officer who serves a copy of the traffic complaint shall do so within a reasonable time of the alleged criminal or civil traffic violation.
Sec. 7. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense
A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.
B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:
1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.
D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A.
E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.
F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court:
(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.
(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
(c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.
(d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:
(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.
(v) The duration of the violation.
(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.
(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.
3. The violation shall be considered:
(a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's business location.
(b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's business location.
G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general's website.
H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.
J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.
K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE:
1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
Sec. 8. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense
A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.
B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:
1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.
D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A.
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.
F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall:
(a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.
(b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
(c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:
(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.
(v) The duration of the violation.
(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.
(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
(d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.
2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.
3. The violation shall be considered:
(a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's business location.
(b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's business location.
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general's website.
H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.
J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.
K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE:
1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
Sec. 9. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify program; economic development incentives; list of registered employers
A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER.
B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity's determination of noncompliance and the employer's right to appeal the determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall repay all monies received as an economic
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
development incentive to the government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the purposes of this subsection:
1. "Economic development incentive" means any grant, loan or performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax provision under title 42 or 43.
2. "Government entity" means this state and any political subdivision of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.
C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the attorney general's website.
Sec. 10. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle
A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:
1. The person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any reason.
2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.
3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.
4. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF AN ALIEN IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, THE PERSON IS TRANSPORTING OR MOVING OR ATTEMPTING TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
5. THE PERSON IS CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD FROM DETECTION AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle and if all of the following apply:
1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.
2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another person.
C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383.
D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this section if all of the following apply:
1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the arrest.
UNOFFICIAL DRAFT – FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY
3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse of the driver:
(a) Has a valid driver license.
(b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.
(c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the spouse is under twenty-one years of age.
4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of safety.
5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this subsection.
E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or fees for immobilization or impoundment.
F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the owner and each person identified on the department's record with an interest in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514.
Sec. 11. Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 41-1724, to read:
41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund
THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Sec. 12. Severability, implementation and construction
A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
D. Nothing in this act shall implement or shall be construed or interpreted to implement or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302) including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.
Sec. 13. Short title
This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

How Iran deals with journalists that print the truth

2010-05-26T14:26:00.001-07:00

Say I break into your house...

2010-05-22T16:30:00.000-07:00

Recently large demonstrations have taken place
across the country protesting the fact that Congress
is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that
the US might protect its own
borders, might make it harder
to sneak into this country and,
once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand
the thinking behind these protests.
Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover
me in your house, you insist that I leave.

But I say, 'No! I like it here.
It's better than my house. I've made all
the beds and washed the
dishes and did the laundry
and swept the floors. I've
done all the things you don't
like to do. I'm hard-working
and honest
(except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
My husband will do all of your yard work because
he is also hard-working and honest. (except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out,
I will call my friends who will picket your
house carrying signs that proclaim my
RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have
a nicer house than I do, and I'm just
trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working
and honest, person, except for well,
you know, I did break into your house
And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a
fraction of the cost of my keep, and
there is nothing you can do about it
without being accused of cold,

uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and
bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, and I DEMAND that you learn
MY LANGUAGE!!! so that you can
communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous
this is?! America is governed by idiots, and populated by apathetic individuals.

If you agree, pass it on (in English).

If not blow it off.........
along with your future Social Security funds and a lot of the former benefits of being an American Citizen.

Boobquake Actually Caused an Earthquake

2010-05-21T15:30:00.001-07:00

After an Iranian cleric said earthquakes were God's punishment for scantily-clad women, the pro-scantily-clad lobby of womanity declared today Boobquake, a day to flout and disprove the cleric by baring your boobs. And then a 6.9-magnitude earthquake occurred in Taiwan!

sense of humor?

2010-05-21T15:00:00.000-07:00

Don Rickles Roasts Congress... and Barack Obama

2010-05-18T10:24:00.000-07:00

Hello, dummies!

Oh my God, look at you. Anyone else hurt in the accident?
Seriously, Senator Reid has a face of a Saint - A Saint Bernard.
Now I know why they call you the arithmetic man. You add partisanship, subtract pleasure, divide attention, and multiply ignorance.

Reid is so physically unimposing, he makes Pee Wee Herman look like Mr. T.
And Reid's so dumb, he makes Speaker Pelosi look like an intellectual.
Nevada is soooo screwed!
If I were less polite, I'd say Reid makes Kevin Federline look successful.

Speaking of the Speaker... Nancy Pelosi, hubba, hubba!
Hey baby, you must've been something before electricity.
Seriously, the Speaker may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. She really is an idiot.

Madame Speaker... want to make twelve bucks the hard way?
Pelosi says she's not partisan, but her constituents call her Madame Pelossilini.

Charlie Rangel... still alive and still robbing the taxpayers blind. What does that make, six decades of theft?
Rangel's the only man with a rent-controlled mansion.

He's the guy who writes our tax laws but forgot to pay taxes on $75 grand in rental income!
So why isn't he the Treasury Secretary?
Rangel runs more scams than a Nigerian Banker.

Barney Frank - he's a better actor than Fred Flintstone.
Consider... he and Dodd caused the whole financial meltdown and they're not only not serving time with Bubba and Rodney, they're still heading up the financial system!

Let's all admit it... Barney Frank slobbers more than a sheepdog on novocaine.
How did this guy get elected? Oh, that's right... he's from Massachusetts.
That's the state that elects Mr. Charisma, John Kerry -- man of the people!

You know, if Senator Dodd were any more crooked, you could open wine bottles with him.
Here's a news flash, Dodd: when your local newspaper calls you a "lying weasel", it may be time to retire.

Dodd's involved in more shady deals than the Clintons.
Even Rangel looks up to him!

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, I really respect you... especially given your upbringing. All you've overcome...
I heard your birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory.

I don't know what makes you so dumb, but it really works for you.
Personally, I don't think you are a fool, but what's my opinion compared to that of thousands of others?
Gibbs does his best expositional work in the bathroom every morning.

As for President Obama, what can I say?
They say President Obama's arrogant and aloof, but I don't agree.
Now it's true when you enter the room, you have to kiss his ring. I don't mind, but he has it in his back pocket.
His mind is open to new ideas -- so open that ideas simply pass through it.

Obama lies so much, I was actually surprised to find out his first name really was Barack.
Just don't ask about his middle name!
But Obama was able to set a record... he actually lied more in 60 days than Bill Clinton.
As far as his administration -- what with the tax cheat and lobbyists -- well, in the words of Patches O'Houlihan, "It's like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob out there."

With all due respect.

I've found that if you add "with all due respect" to the end, any insult is okay.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

2010-05-05T03:49:00.000-07:00

If he Conservative Liberal
doesn't like guns doesn't buy one wants all guns outlawed
is a vegetarian doesn't eat meat wants meat products banned
is homosexual quietly leads his life demands legislated respect
is down-and-out thinks about how to better his life wonders who is going to take care of him
doesn't like a talk show host switches channels demands host be shut down
is a non-believer doesn't go to church wants mention of God and religion silenced
decides needs health care goes about shopping for it demands that rest of us pay for his

Can doctors refuse to treat patients based on their political beliefs?

2010-04-06T14:34:00.000-07:00

First, Do No Harm to Your Political Party
Can doctors refuse to treat patients based on their political beliefs?
By Jessica Dweck
Posted Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 4:44 PM ET

Incensed by the recent passage of health care reform, Florida physician Jack Cassell taped a sign to his office door advising Obama supporters to "seek urologic care elsewhere." Cassell does not plan to quiz would-be patients on their views, but many bioethicists believe he crossed the line of professional conduct. His actions raise the question: Can doctors refuse to treat patients based on their political ideology?

It depends on the circumstances. Hospitals and ambulances must provide emergency care to everyone regardless of citizenship, ability to pay, or any other criterion. But the government has not yet enacted a universal right to basic or preventive care, which means a private provider can refuse to treat a walk-in patient with a sore throat or a bum knee, say, just because he's wearing an "I Love Obama" pin. The exception here is if the doctor and his liberal patient had a pre-existing relationship. Turning away a current patient—whether by explicit instruction or passive-aggressive signage—constitutes abandonment, a potential violation of both professional ethics and the law. In order to sue successfully for medical negligence, the patient must prove that he was in need of care, that his doctor terminated care without giving proper written notice or helping to find a replacement, and that he suffered an injury as a result of the doctor's breach of duty.

From a civil rights perspective, Cassell is probably in the clear. While the law bars physicians from excluding patients on the basis of traditionally protected classes like race, religion, national origin, and disability, most jurisdictions permit political discrimination. One notable exception is the District of Columbia, which, along with a handful of other cities, specifies that it's not OK to discriminate based on political affiliation.

Even if the Florida urologist's stunt does not constitute unlawful discrimination or abandonment, he certainly violated the American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics. According to Opinion 9.012, "Under no circumstances should physicians allow their differences with patients or their families about political matters to interfere with the delivery of high-quality professional care." But the AMA is merely a club, and its sanctions have no teeth—especially since Cassell isn't even a member. Pointing to the code as a statement of national consensus on professional standards, an aggrieved party could lodge a formal complaint to the state licensing board. A revocation of license would, however, be unlikely for this particular offense. At worst, the board might require the physician to receive several hours of ethics training.

Bonus Explainer: Are urologists more likely than other doctors to lean right? No. According to a 2007 study, conservatives tend toward surgery, anesthesiology, pathology, and radiology, while liberals tend to choose psychiatry, gynecology, and pediatric sub-specialities. Predictably, the authors found a strong correlation between political conservatism and disagreement with the belief that access to health care is a human right.

Idiotic Congressman Worries that Sending More Marines to Guam May Cause the Island to Tip Over

2010-04-02T12:19:00.000-07:00

More proof that we are doomed – Democrat congressman Hank Johnson in a Congressional hearing asked a Navy admiral if sending 8,000 Marines and their families to the island of Guam would cause the island to tip over and capsize. The astounding question is captured on a video that will probably go viral. Look at the look on the admiral’s face as he answers the question. For some of Representative Johnson’s other fears, see Ace of Spades HQ who discovered he also fears moon missions may cause the moon to depart its earth orbit and drilling in Alaska could cause Kansas City to become the north pole.

THE GREAT RENEGER

2010-03-25T16:32:00.001-07:00

How We Could Fix Congress

2010-03-24T15:07:00.000-07:00

I know many of you will say "this is impossible." Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval rating of any entity in Government. Now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us.

We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American heroes.

**********************************

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.

Obamacare Bill Turns the IRS Into the Secret Police

2010-03-19T19:14:00.000-07:00

No three letters strike fear in the hearts of Americans that I-R-S. According to a new report by the GOP members of the House Ways and Means committee, If the Senate Obamacare bill gets passed by the house, the IRS is going to gets a lot more intimidating because it is going to get a slew of new responsibilities. They be acting as Barack Obama's not so secret health insurance police.

“If the Democrats’ health care bill becomes law, the IRS could have to hire more than 16,000 additional agents, auditors and other workers just to enforce all the new taxes and penalties,” said Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp (R-MI). “It is a dangerous expansion of the IRS’s power and reach into the lives of virtually every American.”

Under the Individual Mandate Tax (IMT) provision in the bill, the part that forces you to purchase Obamacare whether you want it or not, the progressive Democrats make the IRS the chief enforcer for a new government-run health insurance system.

The IRS would be in charge of verifying that every American taxpayer has obtained acceptable health coverage for every month of the year. If the IRS determines that a taxpayer lacks acceptable insurance for even a single month, then the IRS would impose a
new tax on that taxpayer, even auditing the taxpayer and could assess interest and penalties on top of the tax. This is an unprecedented new role for the IRS – one that will inject the federal government even further into the lives of American families. The bill also gives the IRS some new "teeth" to strike fear in the hears of the people with, including:

* IRS agents verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage

* IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250 or 2 percent of your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage”

* IRS can confiscate your tax refund

* IRS audits are likely to increase

* IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade

* IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four). There goes that less than $250,000 thing the POTUS promised.

And then the Pièce de résistance:

* The IRS is barred from imposing these taxes and penalties on illegal immigrants

Lets put it a different way, if you are here legally you are screwed, but if you are here illegally, hey don't worry, be happy.

The report warns of the danger of giving the IRS double duty:

The 2009 National Taxpayer Advocate’s report to Congress includes an extensive and ominous discussion on the risks and challenges involved in running social programs through the tax system. The report expresses concern that the IRS has neither the mission nor the expertise to perform such tasks.

“When social program delivery is grafted to traditional IRS activities,
there arises a potential conflict with the IRS’s traditional mission [of revenue collection],” the report states.

The Taxpayer Advocate discusses these concerns in the context of refundable credits such as the earned income tax credit, but the analysis is especially timely considering that the IRS could soon be responsible for administering large portions of the nation’s health care system – a social program that dwarfs any of the existing refundable credits.

The IRS' new powers will simply be another loss of freedom from the folks who brought you "hope and change."

Why You Should Oppose Obamacare: 32 Quotes From Democrats

2010-03-19T19:11:00.000-07:00

The (Healthcare) bill that’s coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn’t good for America. -- Rep. John Adler (D-NJ)

There's a lot of discomfort with the reconciliation process, the self-implementing rule, where you wouldn't have a formal vote on maybe the most important policy of the past 40 years. I have a big issue with the way they're doing the process. I think it's wrong and my constituents don't like it. -- Jason Altmire

Reconciliation would hurt healthcare reform, it would make it partisan, it would hurt, it would stymie it, it would make it very partisan. -- Max Baucus (D-MT)

There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this, but if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up. -- Evan Bayh

You know we’re going to control the insurance companies. -- Joe Biden

I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget reconciliation process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted. -- Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Bluntly put, this is the political reality: First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes. -- Patrick H. Caddell & Douglas E. Schoen

Pelosi says she might use a procedural tactic where the House will vote on the package of fixes to the Senate bill, and then that vote would signify that lawmakers- quote, 'deem' the health care bill to be passed.

Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It's meant to protect House Democrats, who are all running for reelection in November, from having to make a tough vote up or down on health care reform. Pelosi says of this process- quote, 'I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill,' unquote. In Nancy Pelosi's world, accountability is a dirty word. -- Jack Cafferty

As I said publicly, I can't vote for a bill that will publicly fund abortion. -- Chris Carney (D-Pa.)

I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for (health care reform). It doesn't work well for writing major, substantive legislation. -- Kent Conrad (D-ND)

What good is reading the (health care) bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill? -- John Conyers (D-MI)

The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that's the plain and simple truth. -- Howard Dean

The last time I had to confront something like (these town halls) was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble.” -- John Dingell (D-MI)

While I certainly support this initiative...I will not bend on the principle of federal funding on abortion. They are going to have to do it without me and without the other pro-life Democrats. -- Steve Dreihaus (OH-1)

Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up. -- Dick Durbin

Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate. -- Kos

This bill represents a giveaway to the insurance industry. $70 billion dollars a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance, five consecutive years of double-digit premium increases. -- Dennis Kucinich

The problem is this we are spending almost a trillion dollars and folks are telling me I should vote yes and we will fix it later. You wouldn't buy a car for a trillion dollars and say yeah, it doesn't run but we will fix it later. -- Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)

(The Slaughter Rule is) disingenuous. It would really call into question the credibility of the House. -- Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)

And what I believe that means is we’ve got to break out of what I call, sort of, the 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Which is, you have nasty primaries where everybody’s disheartened. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, 45 percent on the other, 10 percent in the middle — all of them apparently live in Florida and Ohio — and battle it out. And maybe you eke out a victory of 50-plus-one, but you can’t govern. I mean, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks to being president, but you can’t deliver on health care. We’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy. -- Barack Obama

You know I respect what the Clinton's tried to do in 1993 in moving health reform forward. But they made one really big mistake, and that is they took all their people and all their experts into a room and then they closed the door. We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the net. -- Barack Obama

How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise. -- Barack Obama

I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate. -- Barack Obama

We said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. -- Barack Obama

Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint. -- Nancy Pelosi

(The Slaughter Rule is) more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know. But I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill. -- Nancy Pelosi

These disruptions (at Town Halls) are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.” -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) (D-MI)

While deeming, like reconciliation, has been used by Republicans and Democrats in the past, the context in which it would be used in this case leads me to conclude that it would poison an already terribly partisan atmosphere and leave the Congress even less able to find bipartisan solutions to fiscal problems that are on the verge of becoming overwhelming. -- Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.)

No one has talked about reconciliation, but that's what you folks have talked about ever since that came out. -- Harry Reid

I do not like the slaughter rule, it lacks honesty and transparency. -- Joe Sestak

Without a public option, it’s just a giveaway to the insurance companies, and it does nothing to control costs. -- Patrick Robinson, spokesman for MoveOn

If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing. Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about. -- Bart Stupak

Republicans and their allied groups -- desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill -- are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right-wing extremists funded by K Street lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of healthcare in America taking place in congressional districts across the country. -- Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse

Africa Aid goes for Weapons

2010-03-18T16:54:00.000-07:00

The BBC tells us aid recipients in Ethiopia during the famine of 1984-85 were rebels who perpetrated a gigantic fraud to buy weapons 1.

So if private charities can easily be duped, then perhaps it would be safer and more efficient to execute payment schemes government-to-government such as those mediated by the World Bank? Well, that is even worse: Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo has been warning us for years that such bilateral programs are counter-productive; as Moyo puts it:

"Foreign aid props up corrupt governments — providing them with freely usable cash. These corrupt governments interfere with the rule of law, the establishment of transparent civil institutions, and the protection of civil liberties, making both domestic and foreign investment in poor countries unattractive. Greater opacity and fewer investments reduce economic growth, which leads to fewer job opportunities and increasing poverty levels. In response to growing poverty, donors give more aid, which continues the downward spiral of poverty. This is the vicious cycle of aid.2"

Please, for God's sake, Bono, Bob Geldof, Boy George, David Bowie, Dennis Thomas, George Michael and all you other celebrities who think you are helping, please stop. All you are doing is adding more hunger, disease, and death to Africa. If you have any mercy in your heart, please investigate what your actions have already done and promise to stop doing anymore in the future.

Pelosi and healthcare

2010-03-18T05:22:00.000-07:00

"(Since Pelosi) does not have enough Democratic, much less Republican, votes to pass it, the door she will be kicking through is the back door. Pelosi told the bloggers she favors using the self-executing rule strategy in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill without going on the record as specifically voting for it. 'I like it,' Pelosi said of the scheme, 'because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill.' The strategy of passing the Senate bill while avoiding a direct vote, writes (reform advocate Ezra Klein), 'is all about plausible deniability for House members who don't want to vote for the Senate bill.'"

Lovely. Members can tell their constituents "I voted to pass it, but I didn't vote for 'it', if you know what I'm saying..."

"In a particularly Alice-in-Wonderland moment, Pelosi argued that the debate over health care reform can begin after the bill is passed. 'Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a 'debate' with Republicans over 'what is the balanced role that government should have,' writes another pro-reform blogger at the Post, Greg Sargent. According to Sargent, Pelosi explained, 'We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have. This is the vision that they have for your health and well being, and this is the vision that we have.' Again, in Pelosi's scenario, that debate would occur after the bill is passed."

The anti-Democratic arrogance of the Democrats, and their contempt for Americans, is stunning.

Judge Andrew P Napolitano Congress & healthcare

2010-03-14T07:43:00.000-07:00

Andrew P. Napolitano is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now a political and legal analyst for Fox News Channel. Napolitano started on the channel in 1998, and currently serves as the network's senior judicial analyst, commenting on legal news and trials. He is a graduate of Princeton University (where he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton) and Notre Dame Law School [Wiki].

Judge Napolitano, the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey, explains that Congress does not have the Constitutional power to regulate healthcare.

Best U.N. slogans

2010-03-13T15:35:00.000-08:00

Another dummy book

2010-03-13T06:57:00.000-08:00

Pelosi explains why they have to pass the healthcare bill

2010-03-11T15:46:00.000-08:00

Reassuring to know she is #2 in line for the presidency

U.S. Is Not Enforcing Iran Sanctions

2010-03-07T07:54:00.000-08:00

U.S. Is Not Enforcing Iran Sanctions-Has Awarded Over $107 Billion in Contracts to Firms Ignoring Embargo
from YID With LID by Sammy Benoit
As the United States is negotiating with China and Russia to reach a compromise list of sanctions to place on the tyrannical regime running Iran one has wonder the US will even enforce any additional sanctions. Presently the United States is paying over $107 Billion to vendors companies that are breaking the Iranian sanctions.

In October Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Ron Klein (D-Fla.) sponsored a letter, signed by fifty other congressmen on both sides of the aisle, asking President Obama to enforce the sanctions already in place.

“As Iran attempts to draw the United States and our allies into endless negotiations while continuing its illegal uranium enrichment, the time has come for the Obama Administration to enforce U.S. law,” said Kirk, co-chair of the bipartisan Iran Working Group and Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer. “Failure to enforce current legal sanctions could embolden Iran and undermine diplomacy.”

“Laws are on the books to crack down on the current regime in Iran, and it is long past time they were enforced,” Klein said. “We cannot allow foreign companies to flagrantly violate U.S. law by investing millions in Iran’s energy sector with no penalties. Our comprehensive strategy to address the threat posed by a nuclear Iran must include giving real teeth to sanctions that are already the law of the land.”

The Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 requires the President to sanction entities that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. Not one of the past three Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have done the necessary job in enforcing this act or the other sanctions which were passed by the UN Security Council.

These pages have gone into depth about how the US is ignoring the fact that the Nokia/Siemans alliance is selling Iran high tech monitoring device to help the regime crack down on dissidents.

The New York Times identified 74 companies that have done business both in Iran and with the United States government over the last decade. Out of the 74:

* 14 no longer do buisness in Iran
* 11 are in Iran but promise to pull out right after they finish this one last progect
* 49 are still getting money from the US and Iran

During that period these companies have been awarded more than $107 billion in contract payments by the Federal Govt. The past three administrations have sent mixed messages to the corporate world when it comes to doing business in Iran, rewarding companies whose commercial interests conflict with American security goals.

It is interesting to note that not included in the dollar figures is the funds used to bail out Chrysler, but both its old owner, Daimler and its "new" Fiat are still active buisness partners of both the US and Iran. Also included in the currently active list is Toyota, Tyson Foods and Samsung which as a company based in South Korea should be well aware of the dangers of a crazy regime expanding its nuclear weapons capability.

Many of those companies are enmeshed in the most vital elements of Iran’s economy. More than two-thirds of the government money went to companies doing business in Iran’s energy industry — a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a primary focus of the Obama administration’s proposed sanctions because it oversees Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

Beyond $102 billion in United States government contract payments since 2000 — to do everything from building military housing to providing platinum to the United States Mint — the companies and their subsidiaries have reaped a variety of benefits. They include nearly $4.5 billion in loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank, a federal agency that underwrites the export of American goods and services, and more than $500 million in grants for work that includes cancer research and the turning of agricultural byproducts into fuel.

In addition, oil and gas companies that have done business in Iran have over the years won lucrative drilling leases for close to 14 million acres of offshore and onshore federal land.

In recent months, a number of companies have decided to pull out of Iran, because of a combination of pressure by the United States and other Western governments, “terrorism free” divestment campaigns by shareholders and the difficulty of doing business with Iran’s government. And several oil and gas companies are holding off on new investment, waiting to see what shape new sanctions may assume.

The Obama administration points to that record, saying that it has successfully pressed allied governments and even reached out directly to corporate officials to dissuade investment in Iran, particularly in the energy industry. In addition, an American effort over many years to persuade banks to leave the country has isolated Iran from much of the international financial system, making it more difficult to do deals there.

“We are very aggressive, using a range of tools,” said Denis McDonough, chief of staff to the National Security Council.

How about no more US government contracts, that is a very aggressive tool that is easy and shows that America means what it says?

The government can, and does, bar American companies from most types of trade with Iran, under a broad embargo that has been in place since the 1990s. But as The Times’s analysis illustrates, multiple administrations have struggled diplomatically, politically and practically to exert American authority over companies outside the embargo’s reach — foreign companies and the foreign subsidiaries of American ones.

There is a great deal of politics behind the non enfocement of the Sanctions act.

....in the 14 years since the law was passed, the government has never enforced it, in part for fear of angering America’s allies

Such as South Korean engineering giant Daelim Industrial, which in 2007 won a $700 million contract to upgrade an Iranian oil refinery.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the deal appeared to violate the Iran Sanctions Act, meaning Daelim could have faced a range of punishments, including denial of federal contracts. That is because the law covers not only direct investments, such as the purchase of shares and deals that yield royalties, but also contracts similar to Daelim’s to manage oil and gas development projects.

But in 2009 the United States Army awarded the company a $111 million contract to build housing in a military base in South Korea. Just months later, Daelim, which disputes that its contracts violated the letter of the law, announced a new $600 million deal to help develop the South Pars gas field in Iran.

John Bolton, former United Nations ambassador in the Bush administration, said failing to enforce the law by punishing such companies both sent “a signal to the Iranians that we’re not serious” and undercut Washington’s credibility when it did threaten action.

Mr. Bolton recalled what happened in 2004 when he suggested to the Japanese ambassador that Japan’s state-controlled oil exploration company, Inpex, might be penalized for a $2 billion investment in the Azadegan field in Iran. “The Japanese ambassador said, ‘Well, that’s interesting. How come you’ve never sanctioned a European Union company?’ ” Mr. Bolton recounted.

Inpex was never penalized, though several years later it decided to reduce its stake in the Iranian project. And to Mr. Bolton’s chagrin, the Bush administration did not act on reports about other such investments, neither waiving the law nor penalizing violators.

Now, though, frustration over Iran’s intransigence has spawned a growing, if still piecemeal, movement to more effectively use the power of the government purse to turn companies away from investing there.

Nineteen states — including New York, California and Florida — have rules that bar or discourage their pension funds from investing in companies that do certain types of business in Iran. Congress is considering legislation that would have the federal government follow suit, by mandating that companies that invest in Iran’s energy industry be denied federal contracts. The provision is modeled on an existing law dealing with war-torn Sudan.

Obama administration officials, while indicating that they were open to the idea, called it only one variable in a complex equation. Right now, the president’s priority is on breaking down Chinese resistance to the new United Nations sanctions, which apply across borders and are aimed squarely at entities that support Iran’s nuclear program.

But just today China's Foreign Minister said new sanctions on Iran will not solve the standoff over its nuclear program, and Russia continues to resist an embargo on weapons shipments to Iran

So as the world community gets all tied up in its underwear trying to find the best powder-puff-type sanctions that can get by both Russia and China in the Security Council, why not enforce existing sanctions?

William A. Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council.... argues that their futility can be seen in the intransigence of the Iranian government and the way American oil companies have simply been replaced by foreign competitors. Moreover, many foreign companies with business interests in Iran are also large American employers; deny them federal contracts and other benefits, Mr. Reinsch said, “and it’s those workers who will pay the price.”

But Hans Sandberg, senior vice president of Atlas Copco, which is based in Sweden, offered a different perspective. Atlas Copco’s sales of mining and construction equipment to Iran are dwarfed by its American business, including military contracts. If forced to choose, he said: “It would be no problem. We wouldn’t trade with Iran.”

Time for the US Government to get serious about the Nuclear threat.

Universal Healthcare

2010-03-07T07:49:00.000-08:00

A parody of "Runaround Sue" by Dion and the Belmonts

IACOCCA SPEAKS OUT ON OBAMA

2010-03-03T13:46:00.000-08:00

Just as true today as it was when his book first came out.
He was, and still is, a brilliant businessman!
Often we need to be reminded of Iococca's words.
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.

Lee Iacocca Says:

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'trust me the economy is getting better..'

Better? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out along with Obama!'

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore..

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.. While we're fiddling in Afghanistan , Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do. And the liberal press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with thumb up your butt and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.

We're immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. But our soldiers are dying daily.

We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it's getting worse every day!

We've lost the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.

Gas prices are going to skyrock again, and nobody in power has a lucid plan to open drilling to solve the problem. This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the flea-hugging environmentalists.

Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers union.

Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegals amnesty and free healthcare.

The middle class is being squeezed to death every day.

These are times that cry out for leadership..

But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?

We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that's just crazy... Deal with life.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it!
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.

Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our future is at stake!!
***********************************
LET'S GET THE ROOKIE OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.

2010-02-28T10:40:00.000-08:00

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON
TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:

* A JOB,
* A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* WELFARE,
* FOOD STAMPS,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON,
* BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE,
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT.

Health Care reform?

2010-01-24T06:43:00.000-08:00

Congressman Rogers' makes his opening statement on Health Care reform legislation that is under debate in Congress.

Face the Voters

2010-01-17T04:48:00.000-08:00

By Jennifer Rubin on Contentions

On Face the Nation, there was some serious talk as to why the Christmas Day bombing is so perilous for the Obama team. It is not simply that once again Democrats may be perceived as weak on national security. There is a more basic issue now rumbling through not just conservative circles but also in the mainstream media: can these people be trusted to do much of anything? Jan Crawford took up the competency angle:

The reason that’s an issue for Obama is that it goes to the bigger question of the competency of his government and the trust that people have in that government. You look at polls. Polls show that the trust in government is an all time low. Domestically, obviously, stimulus plan hasn’t worked. Unemployment is high. And so now we have a situation where a terrorist can get on an airplane, seemingly could have been caught if some officials had just done a basic Google search of the database. And the Homeland Security secretary is insisting the system worked.

Really, what have the Obami done well? Not the stimulus plan. Not crafting a popular and coherent health-care bill. And not instilling confidence that there are competent people who can, when bombarded with intelligence, put it together to prevent an attack or even craft a policy designed to extract information after an attack. But Bob Schieffer, not exactly a fire-breathing conservative, really laid into the Obami. The problem is not only competence but also trust. The Democrats are consumed with political spin even on national security. He notes that Janet Napolitano was getting hammered but explains that this is a symptom of a bigger issue:

But she was just following the modern bipartisan public relations template in this age of information management. First, play down the problem. Second, emphasize what did not go wrong. Assure us that those in charge are investigating, and most important, emphasize no one in any position of responsibility is at fault. It’s not lying. But it’s not exactly the whole truth, certainly not the whole story. All she left out was that part about asking us to respect the privacy of those involved. Oh, I’m sorry. I got the government spin mixed up with the Tiger spin. Here is the difference. Tiger can hire as many people as he wants to make his excuses. It maydo him no good but it’s his money to spend as he wishes. When government officials insult us with spin they’re doing it on our dime, which is supposed to be used to operate the government, not to hold news conferences to tell us what a fine job people on the public payroll are doing. As we learned during Katrina, self-serving spin at the first sign of crisis does not help the situation. It makes it worse. Because it makes it harder to believe anything the government says. Real security is built on trust in government. That requires truth, which should be the beginning of government presentations, not the fallback position.

Yowser. Now that’s a narrative that should concern the Obami. Unfortunately, one wonders if they know what to do with a problem not solvable by spin and attack-dog tactics. At some point you really have to govern. Sadly, that is not their strong suit.

The Terror Cycle

2010-01-15T12:07:00.000-08:00

Maybe it does make sense

2010-01-01T19:51:00.000-08:00

Take a look at this and just remember elections in Nov. 2010.

U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
1. They voted to not give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
2. Your Medicaid premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years and
You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is $1,600 or $3,200 for husband and wife.
3. Over 2-yrs they each get $10,000
4. Do you feel SCREWED?
5. Will they stop your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., from increasing?
NO WAY . They have a raise and better benefits.. Why care about you? You never did anything about it in the past. Further the provisions of the House & Senate health care bills do not apply to them!
They think you are obviously are too stupid or don't care.
6. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?
IN 2010 YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET RID OF 1/3 OF THE SENATE, AND 100% OF THE HOUSE.

MAKE SURE YOU'RE STILL MAD IN NOVEMBER 2010 AND REMIND THEIR REPLACEMENTS NOT TO SCREW UP.

It is time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States, but does not apply equally to members of the Senate and House of Representatives, including the staffs of each, and also all members of the Executive and Judiciary branches of the government, and, further, Congress shall make no law that applies to the above-mentioned groups but does not apply equally to all citizens of the
United States."

Let's get this passed around, folks - these people in Washington have brought this upon themselves!!! It's time for retribution. Let's take back America.
If you don't forward this to all your friends you're just part of the problem of national apathy.

Newt talks history

2009-12-18T16:34:00.000-08:00

The Paradox of Eloquence

2009-12-18T05:33:00.001-08:00

The Bill and Hillary Kitchen Set

2009-12-18T04:50:00.000-08:00

American Diplomacy

2009-12-18T04:26:00.000-08:00

Send Us Your Tired, Your Poor, But Only if They're 'Culturally Unique'

2009-12-10T16:38:00.000-08:00

Immigration Caseworker AA0089 Has Some Thoughts About What Is Art

By MIRIAM JORDAN

LOS ANGELES -- When Jordan Peimer booked an Argentine band that fuses Jewish Klezmer music with tango, he thought he had the perfect act to headline his "Fiesta Hanukkah" concert.

"It is hard to imagine any band more fitting than Orquesta Kef," says Mr. Peimer, the program's director at the Skirball Cultural Center here. The event was designed to attract a Jewish audience and the city's burgeoning Hispanic community.

Watch a clip of Argentina's Orquesta Kef.

That was before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services weighed in with some cultural commentary of its own. The band couldn't travel to the U.S., the agency ruled, because it didn't satisfy a "culturally unique" requirement for a performer visa called P-3.

"The evidence repeatedly suggests the group performs a hybrid or fusion style of music...[which] cannot be considered culturally unique to one particular country, nation, society, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe or other group of persons," read the denial. It was signed by caseworker CSC4672/WS24533.

Mr. Peimer was incensed. "How more culturally specific can you get than Jewish music of Latin America?" he asked. After Mr. Peimer did some venting on his Facebook page, a reader quipped that this is the era of "ethnomusicalsecurity."

In fact, immigration law gives an anonymous group of government bureaucrats a lot of cultural clout: They can decide which foreign ballerinas, musicians and artists qualify as "outstanding," or special enough to deserve a visa to enter the U.S.

Ultimately, most applications are approved. Some organizations and promoters representing artists complain that official judgments of artistic merit are often arbitrary, however.

View Full Image
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Orquesta Kef

Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.
Argentinian band Orquesta Kef was denied a performance visa.

Los Angeles concert promoter Grand Performances booked an Indian music ensemble called Jaipur Kawa Brass Band for a summer gig. U.S. consular authorities approved visas for six members of the band, but rejected two, including the band's only competent English speaker. No explanation was given. "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services processes the petition but State [consular office] must grant the visa," says a spokeswoman for the agency. "It is outside our area of jurisdiction." The State Department noted only that a common reason for refusal is a perceived intent by a non-immigrant visa applicant to immigrate to the U.S.

The U.S. sponsor for the all-male Brazilian hip-hop company Grupo de Rua applied for a P-1 visa, and submitted articles about the dance company's performances in Tokyo, Berlin, Paris and the Edinburgh Art Festival. Immigration officer number AA0089 requested "evidence the group had achieved international recognition and acclaim."

Immigration officials don't agree that appearances necessarily add up to that. "Being internationally acclaimed is not equivalent to performing on stages overseas," says the spokeswoman.

"We didn't know what to do," says Harold Norris, president of H-Art Management in New York. "We had to turn the whole case over to a lawyer" to get it approved, which it was, as the tour dates approached.

According to the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9, "internationally recognized" signifies "a high level of achievement in a field evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered, to the extent that such achievement is renowned, leading, or well-known in more than one country."

Artists who wish to visit the U.S. for a performance typically need a P-1 visa; a P-3 visa, issued to entertainers participating in a culturally unique program; or an O-1 visa, for individuals with extraordinary ability in the arts, education or sciences. Once a visa is approved, artists visit a local U.S. consular office to get it stamped in their passport.

Immigration authorities say that in weeding out applicants they deem marginal, they are simply carrying out the intent of Congress in creating the visa categories. The P category is meant to promote the exchange of culture and the arts. The O category is sometimes called the "genius visa. "

Each year, more than 20,000 O and P petitions arrive at the offices of Citizenship and Immigration Services in St. Albans, Vt., and in Laguna Niguel, Calif., where 28 adjudicators review them. The artists' requests represent a small fraction of the visa caseload. The California office alone receives more than 1.3 million visa applications each year.

Adjudicators work in a mustard-yellow federal building whose pyramid silhouette, evocative of ancient Mesopotamia, has been featured in Hollywood films, including "Outbreak" and "Coma." In the cavernous mailroom, visa application packets arrive by the truckload.

"I would like to highlight that USCIS adjudicators work arduously -- sometimes completing receipt, adjudication and consular processing of petition in a matter of hours," says the spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Services. Though the examiners also tackle visa petitions for software engineers and lettuce harvesters, "they get specific training to understand specific visa categories," she says.

Their decision-making has confounded big-city operas and small-town dance companies alike. Asian, Latin American and European artists have been barred from entering the U.S., at times causing low-grade diplomatic tension.

"It is essential for countries like the United States and the United Kingdom to maintain open borders for arts professionals," says Carrie Annand, a spokeswoman for the British Council, which deploys talent around the world.

The officials' rulings have led to delays, cancellations and additional expenses for orchestras, museums and nonprofit arts organizations.

"A Berlin Wall against cultural diversity" is how Bill Smith of the Eye for Talent agency describes it.

When Mr. Smith tried to get a visa for Mexican indie band Los de Abajo, which already had visited the U.S. several times, immigration adjudicators asked him for some details about his own office: "Color photos should show both the inside and outside of all production, warehouse and office spaces with equipment, merchandise, products and employees clearly visible," said the letter of June 12, 2009.

"I dutifully complied," says Mr. Smith. "Then they denied the visa." The reason: "The group's biography indicates their music is a combination of music...," said the denial, and fusion music, it said, is not "culturally unique." The group had to cancel its tour.
video
Meet Canadian Dancer Ashley Werhun
1:03

U.S. immigration authorities initially refused to renew a visa for Ashley Werhun, a Canadian dancer with the Trey McIntyre Project. The Boise-based dance company secured a visa for individuals with "extraordinary ability" in the arts after applying a second time.

Canadian Ashley Werhun competed against hundreds of dancers for a spot in the Trey McIntyre Project of Boise, Idaho. The award-winning dancer entered the U.S. on a one-year O visa, and toured 35 cities world-wide with the troupe.

Determined to keep Miss Werhun, the dance company filed a petition last February to renew her visa for the next season. "We thought it would be a slam-dunk," says company manager Shawn Testin.

Instead, they received a request for evidence that Miss Werhun was exceptional in her field and superior to others in the troupe. In a company of only 10 dancers, "we couldn't say she is our premier dancer," says Mr. Testin. "Every one is just as important as the other."

Despite providing "hundreds of pages of evidence," according to Miss Werhun, the company got a rejection. She returned to Canada. The company reworked its choreography to account for Miss Werhun's absence.

It hired immigration lawyers to file a new application. To up its chances, the company enlisted Idaho congressman Walt Minnick to lobby.

In late November, Miss Werhun's visa was approved. She rejoined the company in midseason. All told, the visa endeavor cost the nonprofit organization more than $10,000, it says.

Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com

Keeping the Nobel Prize would violate the Constitution

2009-12-06T09:36:00.000-08:00

Tad Armstrong
Wednesday, Dec. 02 2009
(Editor's Note: As part of our efforts to provide a variety of views on the
Commentary page, today we debut a monthly "Point of View" column by Tad
Armstrong, a lawyer in Edwardsville. In 2005, Armstrong was challenged by a
local resident to educate citizens about our Constitution. The informal
gathering turned into 3,000 pages of educational materials, five adult-study
clubs in Madison County and a student club at Edwardsville High School.
Armstrong, 58, envisions an ELL Constitution Club (Earn It, Learn It or Lose
It) in communities across the country. You can learn more by calling him at
618-656-6770 or visiting ww.ellclubs.com.)

Congratulations, Mr. President, but if you care about the rule of law, you'll
have to fork over the Nobel Peace Prize within 60 days of accepting it next
week. Contrary to Mel Brooks' pronouncement in "History of the World Part I,"
it's not always good to be the king. It's impossible if you are an American
president.

Article I of the Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by
the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or
foreign State."

Clearly, the presidency is both an office of "profit" and of "trust" and the
prize package (including 1.4 million clams) is included in the terms "present"
or "emolument." Therefore, a sitting president cannot accept it from a "King,
Prince or foreign State" without the consent of Congress.

While the Prize comes from the private Nobel Foundaation, Alfred Nobel left
instructions in his will that winners would be selected by a "committee of
five" appointed by the Parliament of Norway. There is no question that the
intent of Article I and a 1966 law passed by Congress is such that this prize
is "from a foreign State."

What does "consent of Congress" mean? It could be argued that there must be
specific consent of Congress for this prize to be accepted, which Congress has
not provided because, no doubt, most of its members don't have a clue it is
constitutionally required.

But in 1966, Congress passed a law dealing with the receipt and disposition of
foreign gifts and decorations, including those that fall into the lap of a
sitting president. That alone would bar the president from accepting the prize.

That law, now Section 7342 of the U.S. Code, provides that unless Congress
provides specific consent to the president to accept the prize and changes the
rules for its disposition, the prize must be accepted "on behalf of the United
States of America" and the $1.4 million must be turned over to the Treasury.

Did I hear someone say: "Cheap shot! After all, the President graciously
announced that all of the money would be donated to charity. He won fair and
square. Let him experience the joy of giving."

The framers included these Constitutional provisions to send a message to other
nations that they need not offer bribes to our president in the hope of gaining
political advantage, for we don't allow our leaders to accept them. Would
Norway expect Mr. Obama to embrace its global warming policy, for example? Come
to think of it, that might be a very good reason for Congress to consider
refusing the prize.

Additionally, because the money is not the president's to give away, he won't
be tempted to narrow his charitable giving to only those charities likely to
reward him with future campaign contributions. Does ACORN come to mind?

So, Mr. President, you took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the
Constitution "to the best of your ability." You cannot give the prize money to
charities of your choice. In fact, if you do not turn it over to the Treasury,
the law allows Attorney General Eric Holder to bring a civil suit against you
for all of the prize money plus $5,000. I'm not holding my breath.

Kings get to keep their spoils or designate their disposition, but you are not
king. Better fork it over. Your magnanimous decision to give it away is the
only cheap shot on the table. As a lawyer, an oath taker and the president of
the United States, you should know better.

To put all of this in extra-legal perspective, just prior to his death when
Congress was considering awarding President Harry S Truman with the Medal of
Honor, he said he was thankful, but would not accept an award meant for bravery
in battle. He also turned down lucrative corporate positions offered to him
after he left office. He said:

"I knew they were not interested in hiring Harry Truman . . . they wanted to
hire . . . the former president of the United States. I could never lend myself
to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the
prestige and the dignity of the office of the presidency."

Are there any such statesmen left?