Who will succeed Mueller as FBI Director?

Read the original here.

Examiner Editorial: Anybody But Jamie Gorelick For FBI Director | Examiner Editorial | Editorials

Movie patrons recall Forrest Gump's remarkable presence in an amazing succession of notable historical events. Gump's innocence and simple wisdom amid those times made for a delightful two hours of cinematic escapism. But there is no escaping the damage that would result if President Obama appoints Jamie Gorelick to succeed Robert Mueller as FBI director. Like Gump, Gorelick was present at a remarkable series of recent historical events during the past two decades, but through them all she displayed nothing that could be called either innocent or wise. So let us count the ways in which Gorelick earned the sobriquet "Mistress of Disaster."

First, there was her tenure as deputy attorney general under Janet Reno during President Clinton's first term. Reno described Gorelick as Justice's "chief operating officer" from 1993 to 1997. She was a key Reno adviser during the horrendous events in Waco, Texas, in which David Koresh, 76 of his Branch Davidian followers (including 20 women and children) and four federal agents died in an unbelievably bungled assault intended to end a 50-day siege. The Davidians were immolated in an inferno apparently ignited by pyrotechnic gas grenades used by the government in the assault.

Next came Gorelick's move to Fannie Mae, where as vice chairwoman from 1997 to 2003 she was paid in excess of $26 million. During her time at Fannie Mae, Enron-style accounting techniques were used to make the government-chartered mortgage corporation appear to be in better financial shape than it was. As a result of the cooked books, Gorelick was paid more than $800,000 in bonuses in 1998. She was among multiple former Democratic operatives then working at Fannie Mae who received substantial additional compensation for their exertions in what later proved to be a $10 billion scandal. Shortly before the scandal became public, Gorelick told Businessweek that Fannie Mae was "managed safely ... Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions." It was also during these years that Fannie Mae began investing heavily in the subprime loans and unsecured mortgage securities that were at the heart of the Great Recession of 2008.

Finally, and most seriously, there is the matter of "Gorelick's Wall" and 9/11. Gorelick was a member of the 9/11 Commission and became a focus of critical attention during its hearings when it became known that during her DOJ tenure she imposed a policy of radical separation between the FBI and the nation's intelligence agencies in terrorism investigations. According to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, "Gorelick's Wall" was a key reason why "we did not know an attack was coming." By barring such contacts, Ashcroft told the commission, "our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions, and starved for basic information technology. The old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail." Gorelick refused to resign from the commission despite the obvious conflict of interest.

After such a checkered career, we find it incredible that Gorelick would be on anybody's list for appointment to any federal position, much less to head the FBI.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/03/examiner-editorial-anybody-gorelick-fbi-director#ixzz1ICS7cMcc

Double Standards...

Read the original here.

On Fox & Friends, MRC's Bozell Exposes Media's Double Standard On War Coverage

Unlike President Bush in both Afghanistan and Libya, President Obama chose not to seek congressional approval for the mainly-U.S. bombing campaign against Libya's Moammar Qaddafi, but the big broadcast networks are barely noticing.

On Friday's Fox & Friends, Media Research Center President and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell offered the evidence of the media's glaring double standard on this issue, pointing out that Obama himself had explicitly said that it would be "unconstitutional" for a President to go to war without such approval -- and yet the media are by and large failing to hold the President accountable to his own standard.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdaGkU6U8z

Here's some of that exchange as it took place at 8:15am EDT on the FNC morning program:

BRIAN KILMEADE: President Obama seems to be getting a free pass from most media outlets for his failure to get congressional approval on military action in Libya (because we can't call it war). But in the weeks and months leading up to the war in Iraq, President George W. Bush got anything but a free pass.

That did not slip by the founder and President of the Media Research Center Brent Bozell, as, Brent, you're here to weigh in. Are you amazed at the double standard here, Brent?

BRENT BOZELL: Not only the double standard, but the re-write of history, because the media try to project the idea that George Bush went at this alone. In fact, he went to the Congress, like his father had in the first war, and he had a coalition of 30 nations behind him -- he had a bigger coalition than Barack Obama has right now....

Look at what Barack Obama said on the campaign trail. He said it was flat-out "unconstitutional" for a President to go to war -- to have a "kinetic military action" -- without getting congressional approval. Joe Biden thundered, as only Joe Biden can thunder, that if George Bush ever did this without congressional approval, that he would lead the impeachment of George Bush.

And, guess what -- the Obama-Biden administration just did that, and only ABC asked one question. Everyone's dropped it.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/03/25/fox-friends-mrcs-bozell-exposes-medias-double-standard-war-coverage#ixzz1ICJlusge

How do I get this job?

Read the original here.

Agency Chief Makes Six Figures For Little Work » Merrimack Valley » EagleTribune.Com, North Andover, MA
LAWRENCE — Fighting poverty in the state's poorest community is supposed to be a full-time job.

But the head of the city's leading anti-poverty agency spends as little as 15 hours a week in the office. The remainder of his time is spent at the Elks Lodge on Andover Street, playing card games and video poker, enjoying long lunches, and indulging his taste for Romeo Y Julieta cigars, an investigation by The Eagle-Tribune has found.

Philip F. Laverriere Sr. has been executive director of the Greater Lawrence Community Action Council since 1974. Under his watch, the nonprofit agency has grown into a $30 million-a-year operation funded almost entirely by federal and state tax dollars.

He oversees 310 employees and a sweeping array of poverty programs, including child care, immigration assistance, heat subsidies and even a youth baseball league. The agency serves 35,000 people annually in Lawrence, Methuen and the Andovers.

Laverriere's salary has also grown over his 37 years with the agency. According to the last tax returns filed by the agency in 2009, Laverriere earned $144,641 between his salary, allowances and annual bonus.

Based on an anonymous tip, The Eagle-Tribune began observing Laverriere and found that between Jan. 28 and March 14, the 85-year-old spent 21 afternoons at the Elks Lodge No. 65, a chapter of a nationwide fraternal organization Lodge.

Typically, Laverriere showed up for work at the agency's headquarters on Essex Street within a few minutes of 9 a.m. and left work within a few minutes of noon for the 10- or 15-minute drive in his Cadillac DeVille over the Merrimack River to the club. He typically stayed at the club for two to five hours, then went directly to his home on Ames Street.

When confronted with The Eagle-Tribune's findings, Laverriere acknowledged his routine and said it has been going on for about three years. He said he makes up the time away from the office by going in on weekends.

"I come in on Saturdays, I come in on Sundays," he said. "Whatever is needed to do the job. When you see the checks I have to sign every week — they come in this high every week. I don't always get to them during a regular day because of other things that happen."

Laverriere said he would not tolerate an employee working his type of schedule.

"I wouldn't accept it from anybody else in the agency — I wouldn't," said Laverriere, who claims to be on the job 40 hours a week in the Form 990 tax forms he signs and the agency files annually with the federal Internal Revenue Service.

When asked why it is OK for him to spend most of his days at the Elks, Laverriere said, "I don't know. It's an honest answer. I don't know."

The investigation

The monthlong observation of Laverriere ended last Monday, when The Eagle-Tribune requested an interview with him, as well as Assistant Executive Director Charles LoPiano and Finance Director Richard Robichaud.

LoPiano and Robichaud attended the 2 p.m. meeting. Laverriere did not.

"He had to go to the doctor — something happened to him," LoPiano said. When asked if Laverriere was OK, LoPiano replied, "Are any of us OK?"

Laverriere was OK. In fact, he remained inside the Elks, while the meeting continued on without him in the agency's headquarters.

Another request was made to meet with Laverriere in his office, but this time a morning meeting was requested. This time, Laverriere was there.

"You're going to make this a thing, saying the executive director only works part-time or whatever?" he said, as the 30-minute interview ended. "That's not very pleasant for me. So now, from here on in, I will make a change. If I go to the Elks club, I'll stay one hour and come back."

Thomas Schiavone, who has served on the agency's board of directors for 12 years and now chairs it, said the revelation that Laverriere has been working half days for three years was "alarming." He called the executive committee of the board of directors to a special session Friday to inform members that The Eagle-Tribune would be publishing this story. He canceled the meeting as word about the story spread independently. Instead, he said the board would discuss the issue at its regularly scheduled monthly meeting this Thursday.

Schiavone said there has been no discussion about offering Laverriere a severance package, but Laverriere said if asked to leave, he would demand one.

"If they ask for a buyout, they better give me two years' pay," he said. "After 45 years, I think I deserve it."

Two years of straight pay would be $262,130.

'No idea where he goes'

By the end of last week, Laverriere had reportedly hired a lawyer. But even as battle lines began to form between him and his board, Laverriere was at work Friday morning inside the building that was dedicated in his name in 2003.

The red-carpeted executive suite on the fourth floor is a tight cluster of offices that surround a wide central lobby. Laverriere shares the space with his four top staff members — LoPiano, Robichaud, Human Resources Director Christine Kuzmitski and Planning Director Maureen Mulcahy, as well as their secretaries.

Laverriere's corner office, which has a picture-window view of the city, can be seen from any of the other offices and by the two secretaries who sit just outside it.

LoPiano and Robichaud said they were unaware of Laverriere's daily trips to the Elks. Kuzmitski did not return phone calls. Mulcahy said she was instructed to refer calls to the agency's lawyer, Michael Morris, who would not comment.

"It's not unusual for us to go do different things, different days, different places," LoPiano said. "The agency runs. You have to manage and supervise it, but it runs."

"I have no idea where he goes when he leaves the office, to a business luncheon or one of the program locations," Robichaud said. "He's accountable to the board of directors, not me."

Three times while Laverriere was at the Elks club, The Eagle-Tribune called the agency or paid a visit to ask his whereabouts. On Jan. 28 and March 14, LoPiano said Laverriere had gone home sick or to a doctor's office. On Feb. 3, a secretary said he went home sick, but Laverriere's car was parked at the Elks.

Schiavone said the disclosure that the man who oversees the agency's daily operations has been working 15- or 20-hour weeks for three years does not suggest that the board's oversight of its top employee has been lax.

"I'm not a micro-manager," said Schiavone, who was chief of staff for former Lawrence Mayor Patricia Dowling and economic development director under former Mayor Michael Sullivan. "It's not my personality to go in and walk around the agency on a day-to-day basis to see who's in and who's not. I'm not the clock-watcher."

He added, "Every indication is that this agency is run extremely well. There have been no controversies, no rumors or investigations of inappropriate activity at the agency or misappropriation of funds. If you call the funding sources, you'd get the same answer."

How he and the agency works

GLCAC has only two major funding sources: the federal and state governments, which together provide $29 million of its $30 million budget. GLCAC funnels the funding to the 16 or so programs it administers, which return a portion of the funding to pay for the administrative services the parent agency provides. GLCAC this year will receive $1.6 million from the programs it oversees, of which $1.2 million will pay the salaries for its 16 administrators, including Laverriere.

The state Department of Health and Human Services funds several GLCAC programs, including the $5 million-a-year Head Start program.

Jennifer Kritz, a spokeswoman for Health and Human Services, said the agency has received no recent complaints about Laverriere or the programs he oversees. She said the agency would contact GLCAC about the allegations involving Laverriere's 15-hour work weeks.

"We take allegations of misuse of state funds very seriously," Kritz said. "We will certainly look into the concerns ... and take appropriate action."

Joseph Diamond, executive director of the Massachusetts Association for Community Action, did not return several phone calls seeking reaction. The agency provides training, resources and other services for 24 community action programs in the state and lobbies for them in Boston, but provides no oversight.

GLCAC is among the largest of the 24 programs across the state. The city at the core of GLCAC's service area — Lawrence — is Massachusetts' most impoverished municipality. Median household income in the city was $33,337 in 2009, the lowest in the state and nearly $20,000 below the national average, according to the U.S. Census. One in four Lawrence families lives in poverty. Unemployment is approaching 18 percent.

Into that massive need, GLCAC launches a life raft of social services. Among the biggest are Head Start, which serves 700 children in Lawrence, Methuen and the Andovers, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which recently doubled the aid it distributes to $9.1 million as economic stimulus money flowed in from Washington, D.C.

The agency also administers a lead abatement program for the city and last year received a five-year, $2.4 million federal grant to provide "wrap-around" education and social service programs at South Lawrence East elementary and middle schools. Wrap-around programs complement services provided by schools.

GLCAC's executive director oversees it all. The written job description says the executive director supervises personnel, develops rules and regulations to carry out daily operations, builds relationships with the public and governments, prepares financial statements and directs the operation of services, equipment and facilities.

Laverriere elaborated. He said his workday includes serving the executive board and the committees of GLCAC's board of directors, including going to their meetings. He said his day is expansive.

"How the hell can I explain what I do? It's so damn much," he said. "Everyday, I have to sign financial documents, supply request forms. There's so many things I do."

He said he also hosts business meetings, including at the Elks club. He did not elaborate, except to say that the meetings can involve a card game.

"Sometimes I meet with business people down there," Laverriere said. "We play 45s. You get wrapped up in it."

GLCAC AT A GLANCE

Annual budget: $30 million

Funding sources: Federal and state contracts and grants, $29 million. Service fees and contributions, $1 million

Clients: 35,000

Employees: 310

Service area: Lawrence, Methuen, North Andover, Andover

Major programs: Women, Infants and Children (WIC); Head Start; low-income heating assistance and weatherization; lead abatement

Are you Disabled?

Read the original here.

New Rules Would Label Millions Of American Workers As Disabled

Millions of Americans may be disabled and not even know it, according to some legal experts.

That's because sweeping new regulations[1] from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offer new guidelines on the issue of how to define "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The ADA, originally passed in 1990 and updated by Congress in 2008, originally defined disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity."

When a worker satisfies the definition, employers must provide reasonable accommodations. For years, employers and employees have clashed over who truly qualifies for the sometimes-costly modifications to workplace[2] duties and schedules. Attorney Condon McGlothlen says the new regulations could have a profound impact on that debate.

"Before, perhaps 40 million people were covered by the ADA. That number will increase significantly," McGlothlen told Fox News. "Some people might even say that a majority of Americans are covered as disabled under the law."

EEOC Commissioner Chai Felblum said the agency worked hard to find compromise between the business[3] and disability communities, and she's optimistic the new regulations provide the right balance. "These are workable guidelines that will help people with disabilities, and it will be workable for employers," Feldblum said.

Although the new regulations cannot classify any condition as a disability per se, there is a list of maladies that will be viewed that way "in virtually all cases." The list includes: autism, diabetes, epilepsy and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Overall, lawyers[4] for employers say the regulations shift the burden of proof in disability claims.

They say that employers will now have to show why a worker doesn't require special accommodations, rather than employees proving that the measures are merited.

"It's going to be very difficult for employers to argue in just about any case that an employee is exaggerating their disability or that the person isn't genuinely disabled," McGlothlen said.

While both sides acknowledge it is only a matter of time until a legal challenge to the regulations is filed, Feldblum believes they will provide courts with plenty of clarity. She's also urging employers to stop focusing on defining disability, and spend more time on accommodations.

"I am hopeful that employers will now move to the next question which is, 'How do we make sure our workplace is welcoming to people with a range of health conditions?'" she told Fox News.

Barring congressional[5] intervention, the new regulations will take effect May 24.

References
^ regulations (www.foxnews.com)
^ workplace (www.foxnews.com)
^ business (www.foxnews.com)
^ lawyers (www.foxnews.com)
^ congressional (www.foxnews.com)

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/new-rules-label-millions-american-workers-disabled/#ixzz1IC5BTYhV

Who conducts wars with broader Coalitions?

Read the original here.

Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya
Coalition Forces / Iraq vs. Libya

Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003

Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

[Source: US State Department]

Coalition - Libya - 2011

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate

How to form a union...2011 style

Read the original here.

Barry’s Backdoors, Vol. 1, No. 1: Forcing The Union Label On Unsuspecting Workers

There are some basic truths in the American model. We loveelections[1]. We create hierarchies constantly. If someone wants to be the voice of the group, we’re very willing to let them do that. Tell us your thoughts and plans, perhaps we’ll have more than one wanting to be that voice, and we’ll get together and pick the voice. If only one person wants to be the voice, we might vote whether or not to even have a singular voice speaking for all us. We don’t have to have one.

And when the role of a singular voice is important enough, we’ll want to ensure that everyone votes. We want everyone’s opinion. Consider a family decision. While us parents know the game – the only eligible voters[2] are mom and dad – we’ll elicit opinions of the kids at a family meeting. Sometimes we learn something. Then mom and dad “vote” on what to do: Move to another state for a job, change churches, or move in gramma for the rest of her Earthly existence.

Now assume that mom comes home from work one day to find her mother-in-law in the living room and boxes stacked where mom’s car used to be parked in the garage. Assessing the situation, she determines that it’s best to wait for her husband[3] to come home. She waits ever so impatiently, distracted, naturally enough, by the piercingly high volume of the television.

Husband arrives. Story proceeds: ”Well, just like we always do, I held a family meeting to get everyone’s ideas, and then I voted on whether or not to move her in. I voted ‘yes’.” Wife responds, “I don’t recall that particular meeting.” Husband, “Of course not. You weren’t there.”

And therein lies the change the Obama Administration[4] has effected for creating unions in the railroad and airline industries.

The Railway Labor Act of 1926 (expanded in 1936 to include airlines) has a fairly simple mechanism[5] for creating a labor union:

The RLA contemplates that employees will be represented on a carrier-wide basis through crafts or classes of employees (e.g., railroad engineers and airline pilots), and that the majority of the employees in each class or craft may select a bargaining representative. Representational disputes include issues of whether: (1) a majority of a craft or class of employees desire to be represented by a particular union or to be unrepresented; (2) a union’s certification survives a merger; and (3) two related carriers will be treated as one (or two) for representation purposes. The RLA commits representational disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NMB, and requires the NMB, upon the request of either party to a dispute among a carrier’s employees, to investigate and certify bargaining representatives for a class or craft. A carrier is required to deal with the representatives certified to it by the NMB.

That emphasis is mine. It means that dad had better include mom in the vote as to whether to bring gramma into the house. The entire class is counted – every machinists, or both mom and dad. To form a union or move in gramma requires a majority of the entire class.

There is an alternative, and National Mediation Board, dominated by Obama[6] appointees, chose it: Rather than a majority vote of the entire class, a union could be formed by only a majority of those voting – ergo, dad.

It’s logical, right? It’s what we do with elections[7] all the time. Ah, not when it comes to gramma moving in. Gramma will suck all the oxygen out of the room while we’re home, and when we’re at work she’ll be installing satellite television, canceling the Internet, and having the grass in the yard replaced with white pebbles. She’ll make the decisions that she feels are best, and will send you the bill afterward – just like union dues and unfunded pensions.

And the NMB decision is not a Conservative’s fiction[8]:

AirTran Airways’ 2,900 fleet employees and passenger service and reservation employees have voted to be represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union and theNational Mediation Board said Monday.

The union would have lost under the old NMB rules governing union representation elections, rules that were changed last year. They won under the new rules.

The NMB said 2,904 employees were eligible to vote. Under the old rules that required a union to get a majority of the eligible votes, the Machinists would have needed 1,453 votes in favor.

Instead, it won by a 978-870 vote. Under the new rules, the union needs only to get a majority of the votes cast, not a majority of the votes eligible to be cast

That was just a couple of days ago. 978 machinists – 475 less than a simple majority – committed all 2,904 machinists to join the union. Gramma moved in, and mom wasn’t consulted.

The unions have a twist[9] to not consulting mom:


Under the old NMB voting rules, any worker who did not vote in a union representation election was automatically counted as a vote against the union.

They say it like that’s a bad thing. But, that’s right, boys and girls: If we’re discussing something fundamental to our lives, I have to assume your mom wants the status quo unless she informs me otherwise.

And now Congress[10] is stepping up to ensure that mom gets her vote. The FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011[11] is up in the House. It will achieve the status quo ante of requiring a majority of all workers in a class in order to create a union. And it also reasserts the role of Congress to set such fundamental changes in labor law.

And the latter, I suggest, is just as important as the former. The Obama Administration is known for its backdoors. From EPA regs to HHS Obamacare[12] to NMB unionization rules, what they can’t get through legislation, they do through regulation – and then Obama vetoes anything that overrides it. Yes, there is a violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers here. And it will catch up to him.

For today, let’s ensure that Veto Pen is well-inked. It’s not just a 2012 campaign commercial. Mom is counting on you. Contact Congress[13] … now, kindly.
Related Posts
Wisconsin Senate votes to strip union bargaining rights for public workers[14]
Boeing workers vote to decertify union[15]
Look For the Union Label [Reader Post][16]
Obama’s SOTU school got better by offing teachers and union[17]
Gov. Walker’s administration stops collecting union dues, starts charging for health care[18]

Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=29932

References
^ elections (libertypundits.net)
^ voters (libertypundits.net)
^ husband (libertypundits.net)
^ Obama Administration (libertypundits.net)
^ fairly simple mechanism (www.fra.dot.gov)
^ Obama (libertypundits.net)
^ elections (libertypundits.net)
^ is not a Conservative’s fiction (aviationblog.dallasnews.com)
^ unions have a twist (www.goiam.org)
^ Congress (libertypundits.net)
^ FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 (www.opencongress.org)
^ Obamacare (libertypundits.net)
^ Contact Congress (www.contactingthecongress.org)
^ Wisconsin Senate votes to strip union bargaining rights for public workers (libertypundits.net)
^ Boeing workers vote to decertify union (libertypundits.net)
^ Look For the Union Label [Reader Post] (libertypundits.net)
^ Obama’s SOTU school got better by offing teachers and union (libertypundits.net)
^ Gov. Walker’s administration stops collecting union dues, starts charging for health care(libertypundits.net)

How to lose when you've already won...Politics

Read the original here.

Justice Dept Clears Justice Dept In NBPP Case « Hot Air

The Department of Justice wants Americans to know that there was nothing strange or unusual[1] about its office asking to dismiss a case of voter intimidation it had already won. The DoJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility says there’s no reason at all to suspect that politics had anything to do with abandoning the default conviction against two defendants in a Philadelphia incident where New Black Panther Party activists were actually caught on video intimidating voters:

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has concluded an investigation finding that politics played no role in the handling of the New Black Panther Party case, [2]which sparked a racially charged political fight.

After reviewing thousands of pages of internal e-mails and notes and conducting 44 interviews with department staff members, the OPR reported [3]that “department attorneys did not commit professional misconduct or exercise poor judgment” and that the voter-intimidation case against the Panthers was dismissed on “a good faith assessment of the law” and “not influenced by the race of the defendants.”

The OPR’s findings were released in a letter Tuesday to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) that was signed by department attorney Robin Ashton.

Whew! I’m glad that the DoJ got to the bottom of the allegations against the DoJ. This must be how transparency works, right? After all, the “good-faith assessment of the law” must have been of such good faith that it overrode a judgment that had already been entered by the court against the defendants, who didn’t even bother to show up to argue their case in court. And a “good-faith assessment” of this video certainly doesn’t lead to the conclusion that a reasonable person would have concluded that someone wearing paramilitary gear and brandishing a nightstick while challenging people approaching a polling place was committing voter intimidation … right?

So let’s recap. The DoJ had this video and several witnesses to testify to the actions of the two defendants in a case of voter intimidation. The case was strong enough that the defendants didn’t bother to challenge it, and a judge entered a verdict of guilty. Somehow, after the default judgment, the DoJ decided to ask for a dismissal despite the video and the testimony … and now says it’s all in a day’s work?

Er … riiiiiiiiight.

The US Civil Rights Commission came to a much different conclusion[4] last year, and the DoJ’s Inspector General is still probing the case. Perhaps Congress will want to take a closer look, too.

References
^ nothing strange or unusual (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ New Black Panther Party case, (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ OPR reported (www.talkingpointsmemo.com)
^ a much different conclusion (hotair.com)
^ nothing strange or unusual (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ New Black Panther Party case, (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ OPR reported (www.talkingpointsmemo.com)
^ a much different conclusion (hotair.com)

The Daily Show on Libya: "America at Not-War"

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

6 Socially Conscious Actions That Only Look Like They Help | Cracked.com

A lot of the half-assed stuff we do not only doesn't help but actually ends up making things worse for everyone.

View >>

There are perks to being President

Read the original here.

Obama Cuts In Line And Gets An IPad 2
President Barack Obama[1], Apple[2], Steve Jobs[3], iPad 2[4]

Few would debate that President Barack Obama[5] is the most tech savvy president in American history.

Mr. Obama has a custom-rigged Blackberry[6] and he has admitted to owning an iPod[7].

Now the former law school professor law school lecturer[8] is trying to prove his technical worth by telling reporters that not only does he own a computer -- a MacBook Pro reportedly[9] -- but the leader of the free world also uses an iPad 2[10].

AllNewsMac for what it's worth is questioning how the president got his iPad[11]. With Apple[12] running shortages across the globe, it is safe to assume Mr. Obama was not waiting in line outside of an Apple store in Georgetown.

A CNN photographer also reportedly saw the president playing around with an iPad[13]in the Oval Office shortly after Mr. Obama dined with Apple CEO Steve Jobs[14] in the Bay Area in February. The dinner took place before the iPad 2 was unveiled.

Is it possible that Jobs gave the president a campaign donation of an iPad 2 as a parting gift for choosing him as a dinner guest?

Possibly. The two have a history. In February, Jobs took a break from his medical leave from Apple to meet with Obama[15]. This while tabloids had pegged Jobs with just weeks to live[16].

On Mr. Obama's Bay Area visit last year, Jobs met with the president[17] at a San Francisco hotel to advise him on the economy. There were no parting gifts that we know of from that meeting.

The president has not always been a fan of Apple's toys. In a speech at Hampton University last May, Mr. Obama not only said he doesn't know how to "work" an iPad but that they are a distraction.
BY Sajid Farooq[18] // Tuesday, Mar 29, 2011 at 05:54 PDT | Print [19]

References
^ President Barack Obama (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Apple (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Steve Jobs (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ iPad 2 (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Barack Obama (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ a custom-rigged Blackberry (www.guardian.co.uk)
^ owning an iPod (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ law school lecturer (www.factcheck.org)
^ a MacBook Pro reportedly (www.computerweekly.com)
^ Apple iPad 2 (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ is questioning how the president got his iPad (www.allnewsmac.com)
^ Apple Inc. (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Apple iPad (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Steve Jobs (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ to meet with Obama (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Jobs with just weeks to live (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Jobs met with the president (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Sajid Farooq (www.nbcbayarea.com)
^ Print this article! (www.nbcbayarea.com)

Drilling would create or kill jobs?

Read the original here.  Watch the video here.

More Drilling In U.S. Is ‘A Problem, Not A Solution’ To Creating Jobs, Says Democrat Member Of House Labor Subcommittee

(CNSNews.com) -- Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) said that increasing oil drilling “off the coast” is “a problem, not a solution” to creating jobs in the United States. Andrews recommended that House Republicans bring legislation to the floor if they think more drilling will create jobs.

Appearing at a press conference with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on job creation, Rep. Andrews said, “I agree with my colleague and friend that drilling for oil off the coast is a problem, not a solution, but let’s get back to the main point here that if the Republicans really believe that was really a job-creating idea, why don’t they put it on the floor?”

Andrews, the ranking member of the House Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee, continued, “I mean, walking into this room and having a discussion about it is one thing, but we’re in the minority. We can’t get our ideas on the floor but they can. So if that’s such a great idea, they ought to do it. I wouldn’t vote for it because I think it’s a poor idea. But it says what they think of the idea if they don’t put it on the floor.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the House Budget Committee, said there would be no “immediate” reduction of gas prices from more drilling.

“We need to be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and, in general, specifically, we need to reduce our dependence on oil, foreign oil. But adding to our dependence on fossil fuels is not the answer,” she said.

“We need to be taking a long-term view,” she said. “It’s been proven over and over again that there would no immediate return on a reduction in gas prices or a significant expansion of our energy resources by beginning drilling for more oil right now -- and that to me is not the real responsible way to explore creating jobs.”

Wasserman added, “It’s just another example of how they [House Republicans] can have all the press conferences they want but they still have no legislation that would create jobs – not even that.”

According to the Congressional Research Service[1] (CRS), the total proved reserves and technically recoverable amount of oil in the United States, as of 2009, was 164.6 billion barrels. The United States consumes about 6.8 billion barrels of oil each year (of which about 60 percent is imported).


Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.)

As for natural gas in the United States, the CRS report, using data from the federal Energy Information Administration, shows there are 1,407.4 trillion cubic feet – America consumes 22.74 cubic feet of natural gas per year.

As for coal, the report shows that the United States has a technically recoverable amount of 261 billion short tons; the country consumes about 1 billion short tons per year.

Not counting technological advances in locating new deposits of fossil fuel and discounting any imports from other countries, the United States by itself, given current demand, has at least enough oil for 24 years, enough natural gas for 62 years, and enough coal for 261 years.

Those numbers do not include new deposits of fossil fuels that may be found in the future and as technology advances. Nor do the numbers include the estimated worldwide reserves from selected nations (Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela), which total 1.3 trillion barrels of oil; 6.6. trillion cubic feet of natural gas; and 930 billion short tons of coal, according to the CRS report.

When those fuels are converted into one source of measurement, such as barrels of oil, says the CRS, then worldwide reserves from those six nations equal 5.7 trillion barrels of oil.

On a related note, potentially recoverable reserves of oil from shale – an expensive and currently cost-prohibitive operation – are estimated to be between 800 billion and 1.38 trillion barrels in the United States alone, according to the CRS report. These recoverable reserves – not counting imports -- could potentially meet current U.S. demand for oil for another 147 years.

Michael W. Chapman contributed to this report.


References
^ Congressional Research Service (epw.senate.gov)

All FOIA requests reviewed politically

Read the original here.


Gov’t emails: Political reviews over requests for US records ‘meddling,’ ‘crazy’ and ‘bananas’
By Associated Press, Monday, March 28, 1:14 PM

WASHINGTON — The Homeland Security Department official in charge of submitting sensitive government files to political advisers for secretive reviews before they could be released to citizens, journalists and watchdog groups complained in emails that the unusual scrutiny was “crazy” and hoped someone outside the Obama administration would discover the practice, The Associated Press has learned.

Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan, who was appointed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, complained in late 2009 that the vetting process was burdensome and said she wanted to change it, according to uncensored emails newly obtained by the AP. In the emails, she warned that the Homeland Security Department might be sued over delays the political reviews were causing, and she hinted that a reporter might find out about the vetting. The reviews are the subject of a congressional hearing later this week and an ongoing inquiry by the department’s inspector general.

“This level of attention is CRAZY,” Callahan wrote in December 2009 to her then-deputy, Catherine Papoi. Callahan said she hoped someone outside the Obama administration would discover details of the political reviews, possibly by asking for evidence of them under the Freedom of Information Act itself: “I really really want someone to FOIA this whole damn process,” Callahan wrote.

Callahan is expected to be a central witness during an oversight hearing Thursday by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Anticipating the hearing, the department announced internally Monday that any further political vetting of information requests will be completed within 24 hours. The congressional investigation into government transparency under President Barack Obama is among the earliest by Republicans since they won control of the House and targets one of the first pledges Obama made after he moved into the White House.

Less than one week after Callahan’s email, on Dec. 21, the AP formally requested the records about the controversial political vetting. The agency ultimately turned over more than 995 pages of emails last summer, after a seven-month fight, and the AP wrote about the program. But the emails were heavily censored under a provision in the Freedom of Information Act allowing the government to withhold passages that describe internal policy-making deliberations.

The newly obtained versions of the same internal emails are not censored. They show that insiders described the unusual political vetting as “meddling,” “nuts” and “bananas!” Together with other confidential emails obtained by the AP for the first time, the files reflect deep unease about the reviews and included allegations that Napolitano’s senior political advisers might have hidden embarrassing or sensitive emails that journalists and watchdog groups had requested. The government said this didn’t happen.

After an admitted al-Qaida operative tried to blow up a commercial airliner flying to Detroit on Christmas 2009, the AP asked for emails sent among Napolitano; her chief of staff, Noah Kroloff; deputy chief of staff Amy Shlossman; and four others. But the number of printed pages that Kroloff and Shlossman turned over to the FOIA unit was much less than what a computer search indicated should have existed, according to emails. The department said Monday that the disparity was an idiosyncrasy of how the computer searches were conducted and that no emails were hidden.

“I think we have an obligation to compare the hard copy emails to those pulled by the (chief information office) from the individuals’ email accounts to determine why the discrepancy,” Papoi wrote in May to Callahan.

Department spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said Monday that no emails were withheld by Napolitano’s office, and no one complained that emails weren’t turned over that should have been. The department said its electronically conducted searches distinguish each email within a conversation thread as a separate message, so the number of printed pages from such searches appears higher than when an employee manually prints emails from an inbox but the output is the same.

“At no point did anyone alert the office of the secretary or the office of the general counsel of concerns that responsive documents had not been submitted for review,” Kudwa said in a statement. “Had any concerns been raised, appropriate steps would have been taken.”

The Freedom of Information Act, the main tool forcing the government to be more transparent, is designed to be insulated from political considerations. Anyone who seeks information through the law is supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose confidential decision-making in certain areas. People can request government records without specifying why they want them and are not obligated to provide personal information about themselves other than their name and an address where the records should be sent.

But at the Homeland Security Department, since July 2009, career employees were ordered to provide political staffers with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived and whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked. If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican. No one in government was allowed to discuss the political reviews with anyone whose information request was affected by them.

Papoi was replaced as deputy chief FOIA officer earlier this month by her new boss, Delores J. Barber, who took over Papoi’s title and moved into Papoi’s office. The Republican chairman of the House oversight committee, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, said that “appeared to be an act of retaliation.” Issa identified Papoi as the employee who confidentially complained in March 2010 to the DHS inspector general about the political vetting of requests for government files. The department said Papoi, who is on leave, applied unsuccessfully for a new supervisory position ultimately awarded to Barber and that Papoi’s salary was unaffected.

The emails also raise doubts about whether the emails previously released to the AP were properly censored. “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed or because of speculative or abstract fears,” Obama said shortly after he took office.

In a statement, Kudwa said, “Redaction decisions have always been made by FOIA professionals and career legal staff.”

The government censored Callahan’s email that described the “crazy” scrutiny by political advisers. It also censored another email by associate FOIA director William Holzerland, who told Callahan in September 2009 that the political reviews were “bananas!” Also censored were complaints by Papoi, the former deputy, that the political reviews were “meddling” and, together with “constant stonewalling” by the department’s top lawyers, causing delays in the agency’s open records department.

“I currently have 98 requests that are tagged by the front office for tracking and forwarding to the front office,” Papoi wrote in one previously censored passage. “I simply don’t have the time or staff to review all of those requests before we send them on. Quite honestly, we shouldn’t have to.”

The AP protested last year that the emails it received had been improperly censored, but the Homeland Security Department never responded to its formal appeal.

___

Online:

Censored copies of government emails: http://www.dhs.gov/xfoia/gc_1283193904791.shtm

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Those pointy teeth you grow? Yeah, they're called canines, guess what they're for...

Read the original here.

French Vegans In Dock Over Baby's Death

Two vegans who fed their 11-month-old daughter only mother's milk[1] went on trial in northern France[2]on Tuesday charged with neglect after their baby died suffering from vitamin deficiency.[3]

Sergine and Joel Le Moaligou,[4] whose vegan diet forbids consuming any animal product including eggs and cow's milk, called the emergency services[5] in March 2008 after becoming worried about their baby Louise's listlessness.

When the ambulance arrived at their home in Saint-Maulvis,[6] a small village 150 kilometres (90 miles) north of Paris,[7] the baby was already dead.

The ambulance workers called the police because the child was pale and thin, weighing 5.7 kilos (12.5 pounds) compared to an average eight kilos for her age.

The baby had only been fed on the milk of her mother, who was aged 37 at the time.

An autopsy showed that Louise was suffering from a vitamin A and B12 deficiency which experts say increases a child's sensitivity to infection and can be due to an unbalanced diet.

"The problem of vitamin B12 deficiency could be linked to the mother's diet," said Anne-Laure Sandretto,[8] deputy prosecutor in the city of Amiens[9] where the trial is taking place.

The couple has been charged with "neglect or food deprivation followed by death" and face up to 30 years in prison if convicted.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

References
^ mother's milk (topics.breitbart.com)
^ France (topics.breitbart.com)
^ vitamin deficiency. (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Joel Le Moaligou, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ emergency services (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Saint-Maulvis, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Paris, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Anne-Laure Sandretto, (topics.breitbart.com)
^ Amiens (topics.breitbart.com)

Politicians are supposed to be smart enough to lead?

Read the original here.

EU To Ban Cars From Cities By 2050

The Association of British Drivers rejected the proposal to ban cars as economically disastrous and as a "crazy" restriction on mobility.

"I suggest that he goes and finds himself a space in the local mental asylum," said Hugh Bladon, a spokesman for the BDA.

"If he wants to bring everywhere to a grinding halt and to plunge us into a new dark age, he is on the right track. We have to keep things moving. The man is off his rocker."

Mr Kallas has denied that the EU plan to cut car use by half over the next 20 years, before a total ban in 2050, will limit personal mobility or reduce Europe's economic competitiveness.

"Curbing mobility is not an option, neither is business as usual. We can break the transport system's dependence on oil without sacrificing its efficiency and compromising mobility. It can be win-win," he claimed.

Christopher Monckton, Ukip's transport spokesman said: "The EU must be living in an alternate reality, where they can spend trillions and ban people from their cars.

"This sort of greenwashing grandstanding adds nothing and merely highlights their grandiose ambitions."

Soros and Media Matters focus on FOX...legally?

Read the original here.

Is Media Matters Breaking The Law In Its 'War' On Fox News?

 Mark Tapscott | Beltway Confidential

Media Matters, the George Soros-backed legion of liberal agit-prop shock troops based in the nation's capital, has declared war on Fox News, and in the process quite possibly stepped across the line of legality.

David Brock, MM's founder, was quoted Saturday by Politico promising that his organization is mounting "guerrila warfare and sabotage" against Fox News, which he said "is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

To that end, Brock told Politico that MM will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests ..." Murdoch is the founder of Fox News and a media titan with newspaper, broadcast, Internet and other media countries around the world.

There is nothing in the Politico article to suggest that Brock, who was paid just under $300,000 in 2009, according to the group's most recently available tax return, plans to ask the IRS to change his organization's tax status as a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation.

Being a C3 puts MM in the non-profit, non-commercial sector, and it also bars the organzation from participating in partisan political activity. This new, more aggressive stance, however, appears to run directly counter to the government's requirements for maintaining a C3 tax status.

Since Brock classifies Fox News as the "leader" of the Republican Party, by his own description he is involving his organization in a partisan battle. High-priced K Street lawyers can probably find a federal judge or a sympathetic IRS bureaucrat willing to either look the other way or accept some sort of MM rationale such as that it is merely providing educational information about a partisan group.

But in the IRS application for 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation status, Section VIII, Question I asks the applicant: "Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?" (Emphasis added).

Under Brock's definition of Fox News, it appears he is setting MM on a course of actively opposing all Republican candidates. Brandon Kiser at The Right Sphere blog argues[1] that this new statement of MM's mission means it must change its tax status.

Beyond the partisanship issue, explicitly declaring that your purpose as a tax-exempt non-profit public foundation is to interfere with the commercial interests of somebody else's legal business enterprise falls nowhere within the scope of purely educational activities.

The official purpose of MM, according to its 2009 tax return, is to "notify activists, journalists, pundits and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and take direct action against offending media institutions."

At another point much later in the same return, MM's purpose is more succinctly described as being "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the media."

Besides Brock, who is MM's CEO, Eric Burns, who is the organization's president, received just under $260,000 in compensation in 2009.

For the complete Politico piece, go here[2]. And for additional analysis, check out Ed Morrissey's balanced assessment here.[3]

References
^ argues (www.therightsphere.com)
^ here (www.politico.com)
^ here. (hotair.com)

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/media-matters-breaking-law-its-war-fox-news#ixzz1HvGpkHaa

Reasons for attacking...

Read the original here.

Defense Secretary: Libya Did Not Pose Threat To U.S., Was Not 'Vital National Interest' To Intervene
March 27, 2011 8:16 AM

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Libya did not pose a threat to the United States before the U.S. began its military campaign against the North African country.

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not -- it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

Gates explained that there was more at stake, however. “There was another piece of this though, that certainly was a consideration. You've had revolutions on both the East and the West of Libya,” he said, emphasizing the potential wave of refugees from Libya could have destabilized Tunisia and Egypt.

“So you had a potentially significantly destabilizing event taking place in Libya that put at risk potentially the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt,” the Secretary said. “And that was another consideration I think we took into account.”

During his campaign for the Presidency, in December, 2007, Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any -- any -- use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not got to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

References

^ « Previous (blogs.abcnews.com)
^ Main (blogs.abcnews.com)
^ Next » (blogs.abcnews.com)
^ http://jay-adler.blogspot.com (jay-adler.blogspot.com)
^ http://www.worldnetdaily.com (www.worldnetdaily.com)

Freedom of the Press

Read the original here.

REPORTER CONFINED IN CLOSET DURING BIDEN FUNDRAISER
Sat March 26 2011 17:04:37 EDT

Staffers with Vice President Joe Biden confined an ORLANDO SENTINEL reporter in a closet this week to keep him from mingling with high-powered guests gathered for a Dem fundraiser.

Reporter Scott Powers was the designated "pool reporter" for the vice president's Wednesday visit to the massive Winter Park, Fla., home of developer and philanthropist Alan Ginsburg. The veep hadn't arrived yet but most of the 150 guests (minimum $500 donation) had. They were busy noshing on caprese crostini with oven-dried mozzarella and basil, rosemary flatbread with grapes honey and gorgonzola cheese and bacon deviled eggs, before a lunch of grilled chicken Caesar and garden vegetable wraps.

Not so for Powers. A "low-level staffer" put Powers in a storage closet and then stood guard outside the door, Powers told the DRUDGE REPORT. "When I'd stick my head out, they'd say, 'Not yet. We'll let you know when you can come out.'"

And no crustini for Powers, either. He made do with a bottle of water to sip as he sat at a tiny makeshift desk, right next to a bag marked "consignment." Powers was closeted at about 11:30 a.m., held for about an hour and 15 minutes, came out for 35 minutes of remarks by Biden and Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, and then returned to his jail for the remainder of the event.

Powers' phone didn't work in the closet, but his Blackberry did, so he fired a picture of his impromptu prison to his editors, who posted a short blog item on the lack of freedom of the press under the veep's control.

Powers didn't mention his confinement in either of his pool reports that day, saying only that "press coverage was limited to a single pool reporter, filing on behalf of all local media, who was allowed to listen to the remarks but not given an opportunity to talk with anyone at the event."

On Friday, Powers said, the home's owner called him. "He said he had no idea they'd put me in a closet and was very sorry. He said he was just following their lead and was extremely embarrassed by the whole thing."

Developing...