When I was in school, it didn't matter which authority figure walked by whether it be Principal, retired Marine- Vice Principal, teacher, or janitor. Once it was clear that the fight was over (much like hockey) it was broken up by an adult. And if that adult got their hair messed up because of the effort in breaking the two of you up, there was hell to pay (more hell than the instigator of the fight is already going to get). Should the teacher have intervened? Should the teacher intervene only with training? Is the union rule correct in allowing one student to assault another? In my opinion, what's the point of an authority figure if they have no enforceable authority? Whatever happened to "No more bullying". Also in my opinion, bullies are real, you can't protect kids forever. Parents need to teach kids how to live in a world with bullies. And you can bet my kid isn't starting fights, but he/she sure as hell is going to know how to end one. Read the original here.
Teacher Watches As Students Fight
DALLAS - Video of a student punching another student in a local classroom has sparked a debate about student safety. More precisely, should teachers get involved to break up fights?
The Dallas Independent School District said it is still investigating a fight that apparently happened this past Thursday at Seagoville High School. The district believes YouTube video of the incident likely tells only part of the story.
The video shows 17-year-old Michael Milczanowksi getting punched over and over during geometry class. His teacher stands by watching as he appears to take several blows to the head.
While it may seem the teacher could have intervened, a teacher’s union president said that is not what teachers are told to do.
“In today’s society which is a violent society, you do not touch the student. That should be left up to the administration,” said Rena Honea of Alliance-AFT. “I believe that that is for the safety of number one the students, but for the individual teacher as well.”
The district said it has no policy on how teachers should handle student fights because every situation is different.
“The altercation on the video shot at Seagoville High School is clearly inappropriate. The district has zero tolerance for violence in the classroom and has responded accordingly,” DISD said in a statement.
DISD said the student who threw the punches in the video has faced disciplinary action and could face assault charges. But the district would not comment on if the teacher was disciplined because “it’s a personnel matter.”
Read more on myFOXdfw.com: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/education/051011-video%3A-teacher-watches-as-students-fight#ixzz1M3pLZ7w9
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The President vs. Yucca Mountain
Read the original here.
GAO Accuses Obama WH Of Politics In Yucca Mountain Closure « Hot Air
Quick — which presidential candidate pledged to restore science to its “rightful place” in government policy? If you’ve forgotten, well, so has Barack Obama and his administration, according to the GAO[1]. The watchdog agency reports that the White House rushed to shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal facility for political rather than scientific considerations, and that Obama’s manipulation will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and set back the nuclear industry by decades:
The Obama administration’s rushed efforts to shut down Yucca Mountain were strictly political and could set back the opening of a nuclear waste repository by more than 20 years, according to a new report by a federal watchdog.
The administration killed the repository program last year without citing technical or safety issues, and restarting the costly and time-consuming process of finding a permanent repository or an alternative solution could take decades and cost billions of additional dollars, the Government Accountability Office reported yesterday.
The Energy Department began pursuing a license for the Nevada site in 2008 but pulled support a year later when the Obama administration said it was not an attractive solution for storing nuclear waste in the United States. The administration then closed out funding for the site, eliminated jobs and contractor activities and disposed of Las Vegas properties associated with the project.
“Several DOE officials told us that they had never seen such a large program with so much pressure to close down so quickly,” the report said in reference to the repository located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
What technical or scientific rationales did the White House use in this effort? Well … none, according to the GAO. The administration not only didn’t bother to explain why the site had to be closed so quickly, they never checked on the safety issues involved in the hasty shutdown of the facility. Instead, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu just declared that Yucca Mountain was not a “workable option” and demanded its closure.
There are even bigger problems that the GAO report uncovered, not all having to do with the Obama administration. Thanks to the hasty closure, another disposal site must be found. However, the GAO estimates that even if a decision on a new site was made today, the permit process for its use would keep it off line until … 2045. It will take 34 years to get full approval on the next waste-disposal site, and that’s ifthe site avoids “cost delays” and “garners public acceptance.”
This project was not popular in Nevada, and Harry Reid is perhaps its biggest opponent. It looks as though the Obama administration rushed to protect Harry Reid for his re-election campaign last year, at the risk of the nuclear-power industry and taxpayers. We need to find out exactly how this decision got made, and then we need to fix the process for dealing rationally with nuclear waste. We can’t wait 34 years to get an answer, and it’s absolutely absurd that we should have to do so.
Tags: Barack Obama[2], corruption[3], nuclear power[4]
References
^ According to the GAO (www.nytimes.com)
^ Barack Obama (hotair.com)
^ corruption (hotair.com)
^ nuclear power (hotair.com)
^ ccording to the GAO (www.nytimes.com)
^ Barack Obama (hotair.com)
^ corruption (hotair.com)
^ nuclear power (hotair.com)
GAO Accuses Obama WH Of Politics In Yucca Mountain Closure « Hot Air
Quick — which presidential candidate pledged to restore science to its “rightful place” in government policy? If you’ve forgotten, well, so has Barack Obama and his administration, according to the GAO[1]. The watchdog agency reports that the White House rushed to shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal facility for political rather than scientific considerations, and that Obama’s manipulation will cost taxpayers billions of dollars and set back the nuclear industry by decades:
The Obama administration’s rushed efforts to shut down Yucca Mountain were strictly political and could set back the opening of a nuclear waste repository by more than 20 years, according to a new report by a federal watchdog.
The administration killed the repository program last year without citing technical or safety issues, and restarting the costly and time-consuming process of finding a permanent repository or an alternative solution could take decades and cost billions of additional dollars, the Government Accountability Office reported yesterday.
The Energy Department began pursuing a license for the Nevada site in 2008 but pulled support a year later when the Obama administration said it was not an attractive solution for storing nuclear waste in the United States. The administration then closed out funding for the site, eliminated jobs and contractor activities and disposed of Las Vegas properties associated with the project.
“Several DOE officials told us that they had never seen such a large program with so much pressure to close down so quickly,” the report said in reference to the repository located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
What technical or scientific rationales did the White House use in this effort? Well … none, according to the GAO. The administration not only didn’t bother to explain why the site had to be closed so quickly, they never checked on the safety issues involved in the hasty shutdown of the facility. Instead, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu just declared that Yucca Mountain was not a “workable option” and demanded its closure.
There are even bigger problems that the GAO report uncovered, not all having to do with the Obama administration. Thanks to the hasty closure, another disposal site must be found. However, the GAO estimates that even if a decision on a new site was made today, the permit process for its use would keep it off line until … 2045. It will take 34 years to get full approval on the next waste-disposal site, and that’s ifthe site avoids “cost delays” and “garners public acceptance.”
This project was not popular in Nevada, and Harry Reid is perhaps its biggest opponent. It looks as though the Obama administration rushed to protect Harry Reid for his re-election campaign last year, at the risk of the nuclear-power industry and taxpayers. We need to find out exactly how this decision got made, and then we need to fix the process for dealing rationally with nuclear waste. We can’t wait 34 years to get an answer, and it’s absolutely absurd that we should have to do so.
Tags: Barack Obama[2], corruption[3], nuclear power[4]
References
^ According to the GAO (www.nytimes.com)
^ Barack Obama (hotair.com)
^ corruption (hotair.com)
^ nuclear power (hotair.com)
^ ccording to the GAO (www.nytimes.com)
^ Barack Obama (hotair.com)
^ corruption (hotair.com)
^ nuclear power (hotair.com)
MD Editorial on Obamacare
It never seemed that POTUS was very close to his extended family, I wonder if the author has a unique perspective or not? Read the original here.
My Cousin Barack Obama And Our ObamaCare Family Feud
When Barack Obama[1] and I first met he had already become president and was furiously erecting the government-controlled health care[2] system that bears his name and I had already begun a very public crusade to save America from it. Fate would never reunite our mothers who grew up together as young girls, cousins and friends, after they were separated decades ago, but now their sons bridged a divide in our family that was created by decisions not our own. It’s not often that a president’s most vocal critic comes from his own family, but I believe the inviolable oath I took to my patients demands that I oppose ObamaCare.
Today, ObamaCare is on the ropes—in the courts, and in terms of public opinion. While the Supreme Court[3] denied Virginia’s petition to hear its ObamaCare lawsuit on an expedited basis earlier this month, this case will soon be heard by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a more high-profile case, Judge Roger Vinson ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. This lawsuit, which was filed by more than half the states in the union and led by Florida, will be heard in the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta in June. And in poll after poll, it has become clear that more than one year after ObamaCare’s passage, the American people strongly reject it. The fundamental flaw at the core of ObamaCare is the mistaken belief that the government can spend your dollars more effectively than you can. This tragically pessimistic belief views all Americans with suspicion as either incompetent or unrighteous but either way in need of big-government control.
Sadly missing from the national health care[4] debate was an honest discussion of the origins of our health care system’s shortcomings. Let me be clear, while we certainly have problems, America still has the finest heath care system in the world. That patients flee their government-run systems -- like Great Britain’s and Canada[5]’s -- and flock to America for our medical miracles should be an obvious clue to not recreate their failures; obvious to everyone, that is, except ObamaCare supporters.
While the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to interfere with our health care, the big-government types have been at work for decades and have, by any fair assessment, wreaked havoc. The first health care waiver was granted in 1929 when the American Medical Association successfully lobbied that Blue Cross be exempt from certain regulations and taxes. Thus began the era of crony health care where Big Government’s friends were more equal than the rest of us.
In the following decades, Republicans’ and Democrats’ health care intrusions fueled increasing costs which priced more and more Americans out of the market. Many of the problems we face today are a direct result of those bad laws. The 1942 wage controls (and later tax laws), for example, forced the devastating marriage of health insurance to employment. Ask anyone denied employment or trapped in a bad job because of a medical condition how well that’s working out for them. Meanwhile state insurance[6] monopolies create artificial barriers to insurance portability, increase costs dramatically and are responsible for 1 out of 4 uninsured Americans. The list goes on and on and the big-government type’s solution to these bad laws is always the same: more laws!
To call ObamaCare a doubling down on these government failures is a probably a betrayal of basic math skills -- it’s more like a quadrupling down. ObamaCare mandates that every free citizen purchase state-sanctioned insurance while it increases taxes (on everything from tampons and tanning salons to gold and the sale of your home); it increases spending even more; it turns health insurance companies[7] into public utilities; it eliminates proven free-market reforms and it sets in place the mechanism for health care rationing. What’s more, ObamaCare has been ruled unconstitutional.
The unkeepable promises of ObamaCare are, as we say in medicine, too numerous to count, and are already collapsing. You can keep your current doctor and your current insurance. No tax increases. No rationing. Reduce the deficit. Four million new jobs created -- “400,000 almost immediately.” Public hearings. These are the pathetic peddlings of false hope.
The President made yet another empty promise: if there was a way to solve our health care problems with the free market, he said, he’d be happy to do so. I’m calling his obvious bluff. It’s not just that free market solutions will work, it’s that they already are! Areas like Lasik eye surgery, cosmetic surgery and even medical tourism have seen medical costs decrease and patient satisfaction soar. There are numerous reform measures Americans deserve; key among them are these:
Tax Fairness. Allow Americans to purchase their own insurance without a tax penalty. This will put the patient in the driver seat and make the insurance companies answerable to you rather than your employer. If they don’t treat you right, fire them, just like you would your car insurance company, your cell phone service provider or your grocery store. They’ll get the message or go out of business.
End state insurance and licensing monopolies. Use the enumerated power of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to end the devastating state insurance and medical licensing boundaries that kill competition and drive up costs. We expect car insurance companies to compete across state lines; let’s force health insurance[8] companies to do the same. We demand each state honor the other states’ drivers’ licenses; let’s do the same with medical licensing and force doctors to compete with each other.
Eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Democrats openly admit they avoided tort reform because they are scared to take on the trial lawyers. You pay a “lawsuit tax” on everything from Band-Aids to open-heart surgery. Consider this simple math: the average obstetrician’s malpractice insurance cost approaches $100,000 per year and they each deliver around 100 babies per year. That $1000 per baby “lawsuit tax” is on you.
I discuss these free-market reforms, the effects of ObamaCare and the history of government intervention in a new e-book essay called “First, Do No Harm,” which is part of Broadside Books’ “Voices of the Tea Party[9]” series. I’m proud to call Barack Obama my cousin but my oath is to my patients and my loyalty is to liberty. You cannot choose your family but you can choose to stop them from tearing down the finest health care system in the world and turning America into a European-style social welfare state.
Milton R. Wolf, M.D., is a diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Barack Obama. He is the author of “First, Do No Harm” (Broadside Books “Voices of the Tea Party” series[10]).
References
^ Barack Obama (www.foxnews.com)
^ health care (www.foxnews.com)
^ Supreme Court (www.foxnews.com)
^ national health care (www.foxnews.com)
^ Canada (www.foxnews.com)
^ insurance (www.foxnews.com)
^ health insurance companies (www.foxnews.com)
^ health insurance (www.foxnews.com)
^ Tea Party (www.foxnews.com)
^ Broadside Books “Voices of the Tea Party” series (www.broadsidebooks.net)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/10/cousin-barack-obama-obamacare-family-feud/#ixzz1M3kFReON
My Cousin Barack Obama And Our ObamaCare Family Feud
When Barack Obama[1] and I first met he had already become president and was furiously erecting the government-controlled health care[2] system that bears his name and I had already begun a very public crusade to save America from it. Fate would never reunite our mothers who grew up together as young girls, cousins and friends, after they were separated decades ago, but now their sons bridged a divide in our family that was created by decisions not our own. It’s not often that a president’s most vocal critic comes from his own family, but I believe the inviolable oath I took to my patients demands that I oppose ObamaCare.
Today, ObamaCare is on the ropes—in the courts, and in terms of public opinion. While the Supreme Court[3] denied Virginia’s petition to hear its ObamaCare lawsuit on an expedited basis earlier this month, this case will soon be heard by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a more high-profile case, Judge Roger Vinson ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. This lawsuit, which was filed by more than half the states in the union and led by Florida, will be heard in the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta in June. And in poll after poll, it has become clear that more than one year after ObamaCare’s passage, the American people strongly reject it. The fundamental flaw at the core of ObamaCare is the mistaken belief that the government can spend your dollars more effectively than you can. This tragically pessimistic belief views all Americans with suspicion as either incompetent or unrighteous but either way in need of big-government control.
Sadly missing from the national health care[4] debate was an honest discussion of the origins of our health care system’s shortcomings. Let me be clear, while we certainly have problems, America still has the finest heath care system in the world. That patients flee their government-run systems -- like Great Britain’s and Canada[5]’s -- and flock to America for our medical miracles should be an obvious clue to not recreate their failures; obvious to everyone, that is, except ObamaCare supporters.
While the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to interfere with our health care, the big-government types have been at work for decades and have, by any fair assessment, wreaked havoc. The first health care waiver was granted in 1929 when the American Medical Association successfully lobbied that Blue Cross be exempt from certain regulations and taxes. Thus began the era of crony health care where Big Government’s friends were more equal than the rest of us.
In the following decades, Republicans’ and Democrats’ health care intrusions fueled increasing costs which priced more and more Americans out of the market. Many of the problems we face today are a direct result of those bad laws. The 1942 wage controls (and later tax laws), for example, forced the devastating marriage of health insurance to employment. Ask anyone denied employment or trapped in a bad job because of a medical condition how well that’s working out for them. Meanwhile state insurance[6] monopolies create artificial barriers to insurance portability, increase costs dramatically and are responsible for 1 out of 4 uninsured Americans. The list goes on and on and the big-government type’s solution to these bad laws is always the same: more laws!
To call ObamaCare a doubling down on these government failures is a probably a betrayal of basic math skills -- it’s more like a quadrupling down. ObamaCare mandates that every free citizen purchase state-sanctioned insurance while it increases taxes (on everything from tampons and tanning salons to gold and the sale of your home); it increases spending even more; it turns health insurance companies[7] into public utilities; it eliminates proven free-market reforms and it sets in place the mechanism for health care rationing. What’s more, ObamaCare has been ruled unconstitutional.
The unkeepable promises of ObamaCare are, as we say in medicine, too numerous to count, and are already collapsing. You can keep your current doctor and your current insurance. No tax increases. No rationing. Reduce the deficit. Four million new jobs created -- “400,000 almost immediately.” Public hearings. These are the pathetic peddlings of false hope.
The President made yet another empty promise: if there was a way to solve our health care problems with the free market, he said, he’d be happy to do so. I’m calling his obvious bluff. It’s not just that free market solutions will work, it’s that they already are! Areas like Lasik eye surgery, cosmetic surgery and even medical tourism have seen medical costs decrease and patient satisfaction soar. There are numerous reform measures Americans deserve; key among them are these:
Tax Fairness. Allow Americans to purchase their own insurance without a tax penalty. This will put the patient in the driver seat and make the insurance companies answerable to you rather than your employer. If they don’t treat you right, fire them, just like you would your car insurance company, your cell phone service provider or your grocery store. They’ll get the message or go out of business.
End state insurance and licensing monopolies. Use the enumerated power of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to end the devastating state insurance and medical licensing boundaries that kill competition and drive up costs. We expect car insurance companies to compete across state lines; let’s force health insurance[8] companies to do the same. We demand each state honor the other states’ drivers’ licenses; let’s do the same with medical licensing and force doctors to compete with each other.
Eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Democrats openly admit they avoided tort reform because they are scared to take on the trial lawyers. You pay a “lawsuit tax” on everything from Band-Aids to open-heart surgery. Consider this simple math: the average obstetrician’s malpractice insurance cost approaches $100,000 per year and they each deliver around 100 babies per year. That $1000 per baby “lawsuit tax” is on you.
I discuss these free-market reforms, the effects of ObamaCare and the history of government intervention in a new e-book essay called “First, Do No Harm,” which is part of Broadside Books’ “Voices of the Tea Party[9]” series. I’m proud to call Barack Obama my cousin but my oath is to my patients and my loyalty is to liberty. You cannot choose your family but you can choose to stop them from tearing down the finest health care system in the world and turning America into a European-style social welfare state.
Milton R. Wolf, M.D., is a diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Barack Obama. He is the author of “First, Do No Harm” (Broadside Books “Voices of the Tea Party” series[10]).
References
^ Barack Obama (www.foxnews.com)
^ health care (www.foxnews.com)
^ Supreme Court (www.foxnews.com)
^ national health care (www.foxnews.com)
^ Canada (www.foxnews.com)
^ insurance (www.foxnews.com)
^ health insurance companies (www.foxnews.com)
^ health insurance (www.foxnews.com)
^ Tea Party (www.foxnews.com)
^ Broadside Books “Voices of the Tea Party” series (www.broadsidebooks.net)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/10/cousin-barack-obama-obamacare-family-feud/#ixzz1M3kFReON
Bureaucratic Manslaughter or Tragic Accident
Should the Fish and Wildlife or the Police have tried to rescue? Should they regularly be staffed with divers? Should the police have had rescue training? Was this avoidable? Read the original here.
Boy Dies, Friends 'Disgusted' By Slow Response | NWCN.Com Washington - Oregon
by ERIC WILKINSON / KING 5 News
NWCN.com
Posted on May 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Updated Monday, May 9 at 5:11 PM
EVERETT, Wash. - Witnesses say 13-year-old Austin Anglin was trapped underneath his family's boat for about 40 agonizing minutes before Coast Guard crews pulled him out of the water. For at least some of that time boats from several agencies could do little more than sit and watch, frustrating his helpless loved ones.
"I looked over at the game warden's boat and there were four people standing there in life jackets on the edge of the boat as I was telling them there's a boy under the boat," said Tony Edwards. "They did absolutely nothing."
The two other agencies on the water, Tulalip Fire and Washington Fish & Wildlife did not have divers on board their boats.
The Everett Police Department's Marine Unit - including two divers – was on the scene, but they didn't go into the water because they did not have dive gear, nor rescue training.
Everett Police refused an on-camera interview but told us their marine unit is not a search and rescue team. It's a search and recovery unit. Also, on Saturday the team was working an "enforcement detail," meaning they were out to write tickets as boating season kicked off around Puget Sound.
"The only thing they have on those boats are ropes and ticket books," said Edwards, the boyfriend of Anglin's mother. "That is where the real tragedy comes in."
A 68-year-old man also died when the boat capsized after being swamped with water near Camano Island early Saturday morning. Three other people were rescued by Good Samaritans who risked their own lives to save strangers.
Tony Edwards considers those people heroes, but believes policies should change to keep tragedies like this one from happening again.
"Disgust is probably the only word I can come up with. If we can spend $350-400,000 on a boat, we should be able to equip that boat with proper dive gear and qualified divers,” he said.
Boy Dies, Friends 'Disgusted' By Slow Response | NWCN.Com Washington - Oregon
by ERIC WILKINSON / KING 5 News
NWCN.com
Posted on May 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Updated Monday, May 9 at 5:11 PM
EVERETT, Wash. - Witnesses say 13-year-old Austin Anglin was trapped underneath his family's boat for about 40 agonizing minutes before Coast Guard crews pulled him out of the water. For at least some of that time boats from several agencies could do little more than sit and watch, frustrating his helpless loved ones.
"I looked over at the game warden's boat and there were four people standing there in life jackets on the edge of the boat as I was telling them there's a boy under the boat," said Tony Edwards. "They did absolutely nothing."
The two other agencies on the water, Tulalip Fire and Washington Fish & Wildlife did not have divers on board their boats.
The Everett Police Department's Marine Unit - including two divers – was on the scene, but they didn't go into the water because they did not have dive gear, nor rescue training.
Everett Police refused an on-camera interview but told us their marine unit is not a search and rescue team. It's a search and recovery unit. Also, on Saturday the team was working an "enforcement detail," meaning they were out to write tickets as boating season kicked off around Puget Sound.
"The only thing they have on those boats are ropes and ticket books," said Edwards, the boyfriend of Anglin's mother. "That is where the real tragedy comes in."
A 68-year-old man also died when the boat capsized after being swamped with water near Camano Island early Saturday morning. Three other people were rescued by Good Samaritans who risked their own lives to save strangers.
Tony Edwards considers those people heroes, but believes policies should change to keep tragedies like this one from happening again.
"Disgust is probably the only word I can come up with. If we can spend $350-400,000 on a boat, we should be able to equip that boat with proper dive gear and qualified divers,” he said.
Some people want a 51st state....
...and not Puerto Rico. Read the original here.
Liberals In Southern Arizona Seek To Form New State
TUCSON, Arizona (Reuters) - A long-simmering movement by liberal stalwarts in southern Arizona to break away from the rest of the largely conservative state is at a boiling point as secession backers press to bring their longshot ambition to the forefront of Arizona politics.
A group of lawyers from the Democratic stronghold of Tucson and surrounding Pima County have launched a petition drive seeking support for a November 2012 ballot question on whether the 48th state should be divided in two.
The ultimate goal of the newly formed political action committee Start our State is to split Pima County off into what would become the nation's 51st state, tentatively dubbed Baja Arizona.
Backers have until July 5 next year to collect the 48,000 signatures required to qualify for a spot on the ballot. If they succeed, it would mark only the first hurdle in a long, circuitous process that even the most determined of supporters readily acknowledge has little chance of bearing fruit.
"We at least need to get it on the ballot, as a nonbinding resolution, to ask the people of Pima County if they want to be a part of Arizona," Tucson attorney Paul Eckerstrom, a former Pima County Democratic chairman who launched the campaign, told Reuters. "All the stars would have to align for this to happen, but it could conceivably happen by the fall of 2013."
U.S. history is replete with efforts to carve one state from another -- from the creation of Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1790s to more modern misfires like proposals to partition Long Island from New York or to split California in half.
The last successful intrastate secession movement was the formation of West Virginia during the Civil War.
SIZE MATTERS
Although Baja Arizona would be created from just a single county, it would hardly rank as the smallest territory to be granted statehood. Pima County exceeds Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut and New Jersey in land mass and surpasses several other states in population, including Alaska, Montana, Wyoming or the Dakotas, according to the U.S. Census.
Partisan tensions have long been a fact of life between left-leaning Pima County and a Phoenix-based political establishment that has produced such conservative giants as Barry Goldwater and John McCain.
But the rift was heightened during the past two years as Republican Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in control of the statehouse pursued a political agenda Democrats saw as extreme, including a crackdown on illegal immigration and proposals, ultimately unsuccessful, to nullify some federal laws.
State lawmaker Ted Vogt, a Republican who represents about one-fifth of Pima County residents, dismissed the breakaway movement as posturing by disgruntled Democrats who see themselves losing clout in state politics.
The county's three mostly rural, Republican-leaning House districts are growing, and so is their influence, Vogt said.
"I don't think a majority of Pima County residents want to leave Arizona," he told Reuters.
Even Tucson's best-known Democrat, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had to fight tooth and nail to fend of a Republican challenge in her bid for a third term in November.
The ballot measure sought by Arizona secession backers is a nonbinding measure asking Pima County voters if they support petitioning state lawmakers for permission to break away.
Before secession could occur, it would have to be approved separately by the Legislature, and by a second, binding referendum by residents of the proposed state.
If the Legislature refused, organizers could try to sidestep lawmakers with a statewide referendum. If both the Legislature and Pima County voters agreed, then it would be up to the U.S. Congress to grant Baja Arizona formal statehood.
The modern concept of Baja Arizona dates back to 1965, according to Hugh Holub, a local attorney widely credited with coining the term that year during anti-war protests at the University of Arizona. He supports the current effort.
"It sure sends a message to the rest of the world that we aren't like the folks in Maricopa (County)," he said, referring to the state's population center and capital.
But a more historical precedent can be found in Arizona's origins as a U.S. territory, more than half a century before statehood was granted in 1912. The northern bulk of Arizona was ceded by Mexico to the United States in 1848, six years before the lower portion of the territory, south of the Gila River, was separately acquired in 1854 under the Gadsden Purchase.
"It should have been its own state from the get-go," Holub said.
(Editing by Steve Gorman and Greg McCune)
TUCSON, Arizona (Reuters) - A long-simmering movement by liberal stalwarts in southern Arizona to break away from the rest of the largely conservative state is at a boiling point as secession backers press to bring their longshot ambition to the forefront of Arizona politics.
A group of lawyers from the Democratic stronghold of Tucson and surrounding Pima County have launched a petition drive seeking support for a November 2012 ballot question on whether the 48th state should be divided in two.
The ultimate goal of the newly formed political action committee Start our State is to split Pima County off into what would become the nation's 51st state, tentatively dubbed Baja Arizona.
Backers have until July 5 next year to collect the 48,000 signatures required to qualify for a spot on the ballot. If they succeed, it would mark only the first hurdle in a long, circuitous process that even the most determined of supporters readily acknowledge has little chance of bearing fruit.
"We at least need to get it on the ballot, as a nonbinding resolution, to ask the people of Pima County if they want to be a part of Arizona," Tucson attorney Paul Eckerstrom, a former Pima County Democratic chairman who launched the campaign, told Reuters. "All the stars would have to align for this to happen, but it could conceivably happen by the fall of 2013."
U.S. history is replete with efforts to carve one state from another -- from the creation of Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1790s to more modern misfires like proposals to partition Long Island from New York or to split California in half.
The last successful intrastate secession movement was the formation of West Virginia during the Civil War.
SIZE MATTERS
Although Baja Arizona would be created from just a single county, it would hardly rank as the smallest territory to be granted statehood. Pima County exceeds Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut and New Jersey in land mass and surpasses several other states in population, including Alaska, Montana, Wyoming or the Dakotas, according to the U.S. Census.
Partisan tensions have long been a fact of life between left-leaning Pima County and a Phoenix-based political establishment that has produced such conservative giants as Barry Goldwater and John McCain.
But the rift was heightened during the past two years as Republican Governor Jan Brewer and her allies in control of the statehouse pursued a political agenda Democrats saw as extreme, including a crackdown on illegal immigration and proposals, ultimately unsuccessful, to nullify some federal laws.
State lawmaker Ted Vogt, a Republican who represents about one-fifth of Pima County residents, dismissed the breakaway movement as posturing by disgruntled Democrats who see themselves losing clout in state politics.
The county's three mostly rural, Republican-leaning House districts are growing, and so is their influence, Vogt said.
"I don't think a majority of Pima County residents want to leave Arizona," he told Reuters.
Even Tucson's best-known Democrat, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had to fight tooth and nail to fend of a Republican challenge in her bid for a third term in November.
The ballot measure sought by Arizona secession backers is a nonbinding measure asking Pima County voters if they support petitioning state lawmakers for permission to break away.
Before secession could occur, it would have to be approved separately by the Legislature, and by a second, binding referendum by residents of the proposed state.
If the Legislature refused, organizers could try to sidestep lawmakers with a statewide referendum. If both the Legislature and Pima County voters agreed, then it would be up to the U.S. Congress to grant Baja Arizona formal statehood.
The modern concept of Baja Arizona dates back to 1965, according to Hugh Holub, a local attorney widely credited with coining the term that year during anti-war protests at the University of Arizona. He supports the current effort.
"It sure sends a message to the rest of the world that we aren't like the folks in Maricopa (County)," he said, referring to the state's population center and capital.
But a more historical precedent can be found in Arizona's origins as a U.S. territory, more than half a century before statehood was granted in 1912. The northern bulk of Arizona was ceded by Mexico to the United States in 1848, six years before the lower portion of the territory, south of the Gila River, was separately acquired in 1854 under the Gadsden Purchase.
"It should have been its own state from the get-go," Holub said.
(Editing by Steve Gorman and Greg McCune)
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Government control of Healthcare
They mocked Palin endlessly about "Death Panels". Read the original here.
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) Is NICE
In March of 2010, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it." Subsequent study of this leviathan legislation has brought some truly startling revelations to light; however, the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will likely prove the most dangerous to our liberty.
IPAB is a fifteen-member board, appointed by the president and charged with developing recommendations regarding procedures, medications, and spending priorities for Medicare and Medicaid. Ostensibly, the board members are to discover ways to implement the best practices, devising methods by which these programs may provide better services at lower costs.
To describe this board as a "death panel," as Rush Limbaugh[1] has, is to underestimate its power and misconstrue its purpose. While it is true that IPAB will decide which life-saving treatments and drugs Medicare and Medicaid recipients may access, its ultimate function will be to serve as a lever with which to pry the entire health care industry from private hands.
In Britain's National Health Service, there exists an identical organ: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). (My previous articles on NICE can be found here[2] and here[3].) Because Britain is an entirely socialized medical system, NICE wields power over the health care options of all residents of Great Britain. IPAB, initially, will make decisions regarding only the government-administered programs of Medicare and Medicaid. This is simply a stepping-off point, however, as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle admits[4] (italics mine):
Experts from the Commonwealth Fund[5] wrote "the Affordable Care Act includes important provisions that will finally begin to control unchecked health care costs, such as...the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Building on and extending these provisions across the health system has the greatest promise of slowing the growth of government health care budget outlays, private insurance premiums, and underlying health care cost trends."
Interestingly though, the enacting legislation has been written in such a way as to preclude any meaningful attempts toward reform of costs by IPAB.
According to whitehouse.gov[6], "IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare."
This inhibiting covenant is an attempt by the White House to preempt the arguments of Americans wary of government intrusion between themselves and their physicians. The actual purpose, I believe, is to bar access to all cost-saving avenues, save the one sought by the Obama administration. This is a failsafe mechanism written into the law that forces Congress out of the process.
Congress then has the power to accept or reject these recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendations, and Medicare spending exceeds specific targets, Congress must either enact policies that achieve equivalent savings or let the Secretary of Health and Human Services follow IPAB's recommendations.
When Medicare and Medicaid costs threaten to burst through the statutory ceiling, triggering action by IPAB, Congress will be faced with a Hobson's choice. IPAB can, and likely would, set the bar quite high for Congress by recommending huge cuts, using grossly inflated savings numbers, and making any equivalent cuts by Congress politically impossible to pass, resulting in certain inaction. Remember, every member of IPAB will be an Obama nominee, beholden to an administration with a laughably poor track record of veracity regarding fiscal matters. The pressure on IPAB to operate as a purely political instrument will be tremendous, if not irresistible.
Inaction on the part of Congress will effectively cede control to IPAB and HHS, leaving the administration unopposed in its effort to expand government control over the health care economy. Should Congress summon the courage to actually pass cuts equivalent to IPAB recommendations, the political fallout would be devastating. Either scenario plays to Obama's favor, and it is the purpose of IPAB to bring this about.
This is the Cloward-Piven[7] strategy applied to health care. The ObamaCare legislation is chock full of measures designed to swell the ranks (and costs) of Medicare and Medicaid. The law creates entirely new classes of entitlements[8] that not only will redound to the poor and elderly, but will inevitably co-opt the provider side of the industry as well. Cloward and Piven postulated that by overwhelming the system, you can collapse the system, leaving the people clamoring for a ready replacement and gladly trading their freedoms for security.
To understand IPAB and its intended role, it is essential to realize that ObamaCare isn't about health care, nor is IPAB about controlling costs. Both are mechanisms for building dependent constituencies, hopefully sufficient to provide the left electoral success for decades to come.
IPAB plays the role of goading agitator -- pitting groups dependent upon government largesse against those citizens from whom the government derives its funds. IPAB will demand, and Congress will reliably evade the tough decisions they were elected to make while bleating plaintively about their hands being tied by bureaucracy.
In Wisconsin we witnessed a grotesque belch of selfishness and entitlement on the part of public-sector unions. Despite their outsized salaries and benefits, the unions raised such a hue and cry over the prospect of losing a fraction of their boon that much of America watched their preening indignation with a mixture of revulsion and dread. How much more violent will the convulsions be when people are facing the prospect of medical rationing, the elimination of services for loved ones, and even death? Rather than a circumstance to be avoided, Obama and his advisors intend to amplify this rage in order to cow any opposition as they amass unassailable power.
In Britain, one assessment used by NICE in their cost-benefit rationale is the concept of "social usefulness." A necessarily subjective and entirely corrupt political calculation, social usefulness is nonetheless a significant factor in determining eligibility for life-saving or live-extending treatments in Britain. NICE is absolutely a rationing board. They don't deny it -- indeed, they celebrate their self-described "grown-up" treatment of the subject matter while simultaneously hiding behind the fig leaf of "citizen input" and "stakeholder consensus" when deciding who lives and who isn't worthy to draw another breath.
Dr. Donald Berwick, the recess-appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services here in the United States, knows a thing or two about NICE. He was its architect. Berwick's think-tank, the Commonwealth Fund, is the leading apologist for single-payer health care in the United States and has long advocated installing our own version of NICE. IPAB will operate as an arm of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Who better to direct and build a second Frankenstein's monster than Dr. Frankenstein himself? We need only look to Britain to see the failed model the Obama administration has imported.
The administration notoriously carved out special ObamaCare waivers for its friends and supporters. Can there be any doubt that these same supporters will be judged "socially useful" when rationing comes fully to our health care system? We will see Wisconsin ad infinitum once access to health care hinges on political patronage.
References
^ Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com)
^ here (www.americanthinker.com)
^ here (c5.zedo.com)
^ admits (www.whitehouse.gov)
^ Commonwealth Fund (www.commonwealthfund.org)
^ whitehouse.gov (www.whitehouse.gov)
^ Cloward-Piven (www.washingtontimes.com)
^ entitlements (www.americanthinker.com)
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) Is NICE
In March of 2010, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it." Subsequent study of this leviathan legislation has brought some truly startling revelations to light; however, the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will likely prove the most dangerous to our liberty.
IPAB is a fifteen-member board, appointed by the president and charged with developing recommendations regarding procedures, medications, and spending priorities for Medicare and Medicaid. Ostensibly, the board members are to discover ways to implement the best practices, devising methods by which these programs may provide better services at lower costs.
To describe this board as a "death panel," as Rush Limbaugh[1] has, is to underestimate its power and misconstrue its purpose. While it is true that IPAB will decide which life-saving treatments and drugs Medicare and Medicaid recipients may access, its ultimate function will be to serve as a lever with which to pry the entire health care industry from private hands.
In Britain's National Health Service, there exists an identical organ: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). (My previous articles on NICE can be found here[2] and here[3].) Because Britain is an entirely socialized medical system, NICE wields power over the health care options of all residents of Great Britain. IPAB, initially, will make decisions regarding only the government-administered programs of Medicare and Medicaid. This is simply a stepping-off point, however, as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle admits[4] (italics mine):
Experts from the Commonwealth Fund[5] wrote "the Affordable Care Act includes important provisions that will finally begin to control unchecked health care costs, such as...the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Building on and extending these provisions across the health system has the greatest promise of slowing the growth of government health care budget outlays, private insurance premiums, and underlying health care cost trends."
Interestingly though, the enacting legislation has been written in such a way as to preclude any meaningful attempts toward reform of costs by IPAB.
According to whitehouse.gov[6], "IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare."
This inhibiting covenant is an attempt by the White House to preempt the arguments of Americans wary of government intrusion between themselves and their physicians. The actual purpose, I believe, is to bar access to all cost-saving avenues, save the one sought by the Obama administration. This is a failsafe mechanism written into the law that forces Congress out of the process.
Congress then has the power to accept or reject these recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendations, and Medicare spending exceeds specific targets, Congress must either enact policies that achieve equivalent savings or let the Secretary of Health and Human Services follow IPAB's recommendations.
When Medicare and Medicaid costs threaten to burst through the statutory ceiling, triggering action by IPAB, Congress will be faced with a Hobson's choice. IPAB can, and likely would, set the bar quite high for Congress by recommending huge cuts, using grossly inflated savings numbers, and making any equivalent cuts by Congress politically impossible to pass, resulting in certain inaction. Remember, every member of IPAB will be an Obama nominee, beholden to an administration with a laughably poor track record of veracity regarding fiscal matters. The pressure on IPAB to operate as a purely political instrument will be tremendous, if not irresistible.
Inaction on the part of Congress will effectively cede control to IPAB and HHS, leaving the administration unopposed in its effort to expand government control over the health care economy. Should Congress summon the courage to actually pass cuts equivalent to IPAB recommendations, the political fallout would be devastating. Either scenario plays to Obama's favor, and it is the purpose of IPAB to bring this about.
This is the Cloward-Piven[7] strategy applied to health care. The ObamaCare legislation is chock full of measures designed to swell the ranks (and costs) of Medicare and Medicaid. The law creates entirely new classes of entitlements[8] that not only will redound to the poor and elderly, but will inevitably co-opt the provider side of the industry as well. Cloward and Piven postulated that by overwhelming the system, you can collapse the system, leaving the people clamoring for a ready replacement and gladly trading their freedoms for security.
To understand IPAB and its intended role, it is essential to realize that ObamaCare isn't about health care, nor is IPAB about controlling costs. Both are mechanisms for building dependent constituencies, hopefully sufficient to provide the left electoral success for decades to come.
IPAB plays the role of goading agitator -- pitting groups dependent upon government largesse against those citizens from whom the government derives its funds. IPAB will demand, and Congress will reliably evade the tough decisions they were elected to make while bleating plaintively about their hands being tied by bureaucracy.
In Wisconsin we witnessed a grotesque belch of selfishness and entitlement on the part of public-sector unions. Despite their outsized salaries and benefits, the unions raised such a hue and cry over the prospect of losing a fraction of their boon that much of America watched their preening indignation with a mixture of revulsion and dread. How much more violent will the convulsions be when people are facing the prospect of medical rationing, the elimination of services for loved ones, and even death? Rather than a circumstance to be avoided, Obama and his advisors intend to amplify this rage in order to cow any opposition as they amass unassailable power.
In Britain, one assessment used by NICE in their cost-benefit rationale is the concept of "social usefulness." A necessarily subjective and entirely corrupt political calculation, social usefulness is nonetheless a significant factor in determining eligibility for life-saving or live-extending treatments in Britain. NICE is absolutely a rationing board. They don't deny it -- indeed, they celebrate their self-described "grown-up" treatment of the subject matter while simultaneously hiding behind the fig leaf of "citizen input" and "stakeholder consensus" when deciding who lives and who isn't worthy to draw another breath.
Dr. Donald Berwick, the recess-appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services here in the United States, knows a thing or two about NICE. He was its architect. Berwick's think-tank, the Commonwealth Fund, is the leading apologist for single-payer health care in the United States and has long advocated installing our own version of NICE. IPAB will operate as an arm of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Who better to direct and build a second Frankenstein's monster than Dr. Frankenstein himself? We need only look to Britain to see the failed model the Obama administration has imported.
The administration notoriously carved out special ObamaCare waivers for its friends and supporters. Can there be any doubt that these same supporters will be judged "socially useful" when rationing comes fully to our health care system? We will see Wisconsin ad infinitum once access to health care hinges on political patronage.
References
^ Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com)
^ here (www.americanthinker.com)
^ here (c5.zedo.com)
^ admits (www.whitehouse.gov)
^ Commonwealth Fund (www.commonwealthfund.org)
^ whitehouse.gov (www.whitehouse.gov)
^ Cloward-Piven (www.washingtontimes.com)
^ entitlements (www.americanthinker.com)
Monday, May 9, 2011
Public Broadcasting = Religion
Read the original here.
Its extraordinary decision elevates the BBC’s core principle to a place in the law equivalent to Christianity.
And the move leaves the way clear for long-serving employee Devan Maistry to sue the Corporation for wrongful dismissal.
South African-born Mr Maistry, who worked for the BBC Asian Network, says he suffered discrimination for six years until he was dismissed last year.
He has filed a claim for ‘religious or belief discrimination’, which allegedly took place against his philosophical view that ‘public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion’.
Birmingham employment tribunal chairman Pam Hughes decided Mr Maistry has a worthy case, and gave him the right to a full hearing later this year.
Believing In BBC's Ethos Is Equivalent To A Faith, Job Tribunal Rules
By Steve Doughty[1] and Claire Ellicott[2]
Last updated at 12:40 AM on 9th May 2011
Rules to prevent religious discrimination can now also be used to protect a belief in the BBC’s ethos of public service broadcasting, a tribunal has ruled.
By Steve Doughty[1] and Claire Ellicott[2]
Last updated at 12:40 AM on 9th May 2011
Rules to prevent religious discrimination can now also be used to protect a belief in the BBC’s ethos of public service broadcasting, a tribunal has ruled.
Its extraordinary decision elevates the BBC’s core principle to a place in the law equivalent to Christianity.
And the move leaves the way clear for long-serving employee Devan Maistry to sue the Corporation for wrongful dismissal.
South African-born Mr Maistry, who worked for the BBC Asian Network, says he suffered discrimination for six years until he was dismissed last year.
He has filed a claim for ‘religious or belief discrimination’, which allegedly took place against his philosophical view that ‘public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion’.
Birmingham employment tribunal chairman Pam Hughes decided Mr Maistry has a worthy case, and gave him the right to a full hearing later this year.
In doing so, the tribunal chairman established the principle that Mr Maistry’s love of public service broadcasting amounted to a belief which should have the same protection from discrimination that the law gives to followers of religious faiths.
Devan Maistry’s case is the latest in a string of decisions to rule that everyday opinions should have the same status as religious beliefs.
Two years ago, a tribunal found that company executive Tim Nicholson, a firm believer in climate change, was wrongly dismissed after objecting to his company’s use of flights and cars.
That case set a precedent and, this year, animal rights activist Joe Hashman successfully argued that he was wrongly sacked from his garden centre job after his activities were discovered. He said his beliefs should be protected by his employer.
It is not clear exactly how the broadcaster is accused of treating him unfairly. Mr Maistry would not comment when asked about the basis of his case.
A lawyer for the BBC said it had not even been explained to the Corporation how it had allegedly discriminated against the producer’s philosophical beliefs.
Laws defending workers from discrimination over faith were passed in 2003.
But in the past two years they have been extended by the courts to cover political and fringe interests including views on climate change and animal rights activism.
At the same time, a series of cases have dismissed the importance of Christian beliefs.
Most recently, a couple were told they were unfit to foster children because they could not in conscience tell a child that it was OK to be homosexual.
At the tribunal, the BBC said the idea that belief in public sector broadcasting was the same as a religion was ‘absurd’.
Its lawyer, Tariq Sadiq, said if Mr Maistry’s claim succeeded, then belief in the aims of any public sector organisation – or even a private sector firm’s mission statement – would count as philosophical beliefs.
Mr Sadiq said: ‘A belief that the aim of the NHS should first and foremost be to look after the health and welfare of its patients could, if the claimant were correct, amount to belief for the purposes of the 2003 regulations, but it would be absurd for that to be the case.’
But in her ruling, Miss Hughes said: ‘The claimant had a genuine and strongly held belief in what I will describe in short as the higher purpose of public service broadcasting. It is clearly of great personal significance to him.’
References
^ Steve Doughty (www.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Claire Ellicott (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384968/Believing-BBCs-ethos-equivalent-faith-job-tribunal-rules.html#ixzz1LtAFKhSs
Devan Maistry’s case is the latest in a string of decisions to rule that everyday opinions should have the same status as religious beliefs.
Two years ago, a tribunal found that company executive Tim Nicholson, a firm believer in climate change, was wrongly dismissed after objecting to his company’s use of flights and cars.
That case set a precedent and, this year, animal rights activist Joe Hashman successfully argued that he was wrongly sacked from his garden centre job after his activities were discovered. He said his beliefs should be protected by his employer.
It is not clear exactly how the broadcaster is accused of treating him unfairly. Mr Maistry would not comment when asked about the basis of his case.
A lawyer for the BBC said it had not even been explained to the Corporation how it had allegedly discriminated against the producer’s philosophical beliefs.
Laws defending workers from discrimination over faith were passed in 2003.
But in the past two years they have been extended by the courts to cover political and fringe interests including views on climate change and animal rights activism.
At the same time, a series of cases have dismissed the importance of Christian beliefs.
Most recently, a couple were told they were unfit to foster children because they could not in conscience tell a child that it was OK to be homosexual.
At the tribunal, the BBC said the idea that belief in public sector broadcasting was the same as a religion was ‘absurd’.
Its lawyer, Tariq Sadiq, said if Mr Maistry’s claim succeeded, then belief in the aims of any public sector organisation – or even a private sector firm’s mission statement – would count as philosophical beliefs.
Mr Sadiq said: ‘A belief that the aim of the NHS should first and foremost be to look after the health and welfare of its patients could, if the claimant were correct, amount to belief for the purposes of the 2003 regulations, but it would be absurd for that to be the case.’
But in her ruling, Miss Hughes said: ‘The claimant had a genuine and strongly held belief in what I will describe in short as the higher purpose of public service broadcasting. It is clearly of great personal significance to him.’
References
^ Steve Doughty (www.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Claire Ellicott (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384968/Believing-BBCs-ethos-equivalent-faith-job-tribunal-rules.html#ixzz1LtAFKhSs
Don't be a landlord in San Francisco
Read the original here.
The Small-Time Landlord Vs. Big-Time Tenants’ Rights
In San Francisco, one of the toughest places in the country to find a place to live, more than 31,000 housing units — one of every 12 — now sit vacant, according to recently released census data. That’s the highest vacancy rate in the region, and a 70 percent increase from a decade ago. (Scroll down to see a map of vacant housing units in the Bay Area.)
To know one big reason why, ask Wayne Koniuk. By trade, Koniuk fashions artificial limbs for amputees. By habit, he fits prostheses at no charge for people who cannot pay. This has left him a less-than-wealthy man.
But he does have one substantial asset: a Divisadero Street building that his father, Walter, an orthotist, bought in 1970 and gave to his only son in 2001 so Wayne could run his business on the ground floor and Wayne’s adult children would always have a place to live.
“For eternity,” Koniuk recalls his father saying, “my grandkids will always have a place they can go. No matter whatever happens, that building should stay in the family.”
Koniuk, who himself lives in suburban Belmont, gave a half-interest in the building to his older son in 2007 so he could evict a tenant and move in himself. But under San Francisco’s extraordinarily pro-tenant housing laws, landlords can do this only once per building.
So while Koniuk desperately wants to move his younger son into the building’s other four-bedroom apartment, he cannot. He is exploring legal options. Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month.
Last spring, Koniuk offered Murphy $45,000 to move out. Murphy’s lawyer demanded $70,000, a sum Koniuk says he does not have. Meanwhile, the city’s Rent Board notified Koniuk that he was allowed to increase Murphy’s monthly rent this year by $2.63.
Murphy did not respond to several phone messages left over a two-week period. Harold Jaffe, the lawyer who wrote the demand letter, said he no longer represented Murphy.
Murphy is afforded extra protections as a renter because he is more than 60 years old. Koniuk might still be able to evict Murphy and allow his younger son, Adam, to move in by invoking the Ellis Act, which would entitle Murphy to about $10,000 in compensation and give him a year to vacate. But doing so would impose permanent restrictions on the Divisadero building’s future use, seriously depressing its value. And should 24-year-old Adam decide to move elsewhere, the Koniuks would be legally required for a decade to offer Murphy his old apartment, at his old rent. Invoking the Ellis Act would also mean that any new tenant to the unit, should Murphy decline the chance to return, would also be entitled to Murphy's old rent amount for many years to come. So the Koniuks would likely opt to just leave it vacant.
Increasingly, small-time landlords like Koniuk are just giving up. One of his Divisadero Street neighbors has left two large apartments on the second and third floors of her building vacant for more than a decade, after a series of tenant difficulties. It’s just not worth the bother, or the risk, of being legally tied to a tenant for decades.
“Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”
Perversely, that is hurting the city’s renters as well, as a large percentage of the city’s housing stock is allowed to just sit vacant, driving up rents that newcomers pay for market-rate housing.
San Francisco is a notoriously tough city for small-time landlords. “It is the dream of every landlord to be a landlord in the most lucrative market in the country,” said Ted Gullicksen, head of San Francisco’s powerful Tenants Union. “There’s no sympathy whatsoever.”
Without strong protections, tenant advocates say, only the wealthy would be able to afford to live here. Countless longtime residents, especially the elderly, would be out on the streets.
This is a consensus view in many circles, as illustrated by a recent feature in The San Francisco Chronicle. “Throwing senior citizens out on the sidewalk is never a good idea, but it isn’t stopping North Beach developer Peter Iskander,” it began.
Left unsaid was that one of the article’s featured characters, Carlo Tarrone, pays $450 a month in rent. Or, more significantly, that Tarrone in 1999 bought (half in cash) a two-unit residential building near Telegraph Hill that the real estate website Zillow values at $1.7 million. Tarrone, whom I interviewed by phone, is by no means poor or facing homelessness.
Koniuk is not a slick developer who aims to toss widows and orphans into the street. He could sell, but he does not want to. He wants to honor his father’s wishes and allow his own sons to live in his own building.
“My name is Koniuk. My sons’ name is Koniuk. My father’s name was Koniuk,” he said. “We should be able to move them into a building we own.”
A version of this article appears in the Bay Area edition of The New York Times.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12lM2)
The Small-Time Landlord Vs. Big-Time Tenants’ Rights
In San Francisco, one of the toughest places in the country to find a place to live, more than 31,000 housing units — one of every 12 — now sit vacant, according to recently released census data. That’s the highest vacancy rate in the region, and a 70 percent increase from a decade ago. (Scroll down to see a map of vacant housing units in the Bay Area.)
To know one big reason why, ask Wayne Koniuk. By trade, Koniuk fashions artificial limbs for amputees. By habit, he fits prostheses at no charge for people who cannot pay. This has left him a less-than-wealthy man.
But he does have one substantial asset: a Divisadero Street building that his father, Walter, an orthotist, bought in 1970 and gave to his only son in 2001 so Wayne could run his business on the ground floor and Wayne’s adult children would always have a place to live.
“For eternity,” Koniuk recalls his father saying, “my grandkids will always have a place they can go. No matter whatever happens, that building should stay in the family.”
Koniuk, who himself lives in suburban Belmont, gave a half-interest in the building to his older son in 2007 so he could evict a tenant and move in himself. But under San Francisco’s extraordinarily pro-tenant housing laws, landlords can do this only once per building.
So while Koniuk desperately wants to move his younger son into the building’s other four-bedroom apartment, he cannot. He is exploring legal options. Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month.
Last spring, Koniuk offered Murphy $45,000 to move out. Murphy’s lawyer demanded $70,000, a sum Koniuk says he does not have. Meanwhile, the city’s Rent Board notified Koniuk that he was allowed to increase Murphy’s monthly rent this year by $2.63.
Murphy did not respond to several phone messages left over a two-week period. Harold Jaffe, the lawyer who wrote the demand letter, said he no longer represented Murphy.
Murphy is afforded extra protections as a renter because he is more than 60 years old. Koniuk might still be able to evict Murphy and allow his younger son, Adam, to move in by invoking the Ellis Act, which would entitle Murphy to about $10,000 in compensation and give him a year to vacate. But doing so would impose permanent restrictions on the Divisadero building’s future use, seriously depressing its value. And should 24-year-old Adam decide to move elsewhere, the Koniuks would be legally required for a decade to offer Murphy his old apartment, at his old rent. Invoking the Ellis Act would also mean that any new tenant to the unit, should Murphy decline the chance to return, would also be entitled to Murphy's old rent amount for many years to come. So the Koniuks would likely opt to just leave it vacant.
Increasingly, small-time landlords like Koniuk are just giving up. One of his Divisadero Street neighbors has left two large apartments on the second and third floors of her building vacant for more than a decade, after a series of tenant difficulties. It’s just not worth the bother, or the risk, of being legally tied to a tenant for decades.
“Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”
Perversely, that is hurting the city’s renters as well, as a large percentage of the city’s housing stock is allowed to just sit vacant, driving up rents that newcomers pay for market-rate housing.
San Francisco is a notoriously tough city for small-time landlords. “It is the dream of every landlord to be a landlord in the most lucrative market in the country,” said Ted Gullicksen, head of San Francisco’s powerful Tenants Union. “There’s no sympathy whatsoever.”
Without strong protections, tenant advocates say, only the wealthy would be able to afford to live here. Countless longtime residents, especially the elderly, would be out on the streets.
This is a consensus view in many circles, as illustrated by a recent feature in The San Francisco Chronicle. “Throwing senior citizens out on the sidewalk is never a good idea, but it isn’t stopping North Beach developer Peter Iskander,” it began.
Left unsaid was that one of the article’s featured characters, Carlo Tarrone, pays $450 a month in rent. Or, more significantly, that Tarrone in 1999 bought (half in cash) a two-unit residential building near Telegraph Hill that the real estate website Zillow values at $1.7 million. Tarrone, whom I interviewed by phone, is by no means poor or facing homelessness.
Koniuk is not a slick developer who aims to toss widows and orphans into the street. He could sell, but he does not want to. He wants to honor his father’s wishes and allow his own sons to live in his own building.
“My name is Koniuk. My sons’ name is Koniuk. My father’s name was Koniuk,” he said. “We should be able to move them into a building we own.”
A version of this article appears in the Bay Area edition of The New York Times.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12lM2)
Friday, May 6, 2011
A military takedown vs. a police arrest
Finally, someone mentions the obvious. With everyone wringing their hands over whether this was an "execution" or a"murder" they ignore the obvious. This was the military takedown of the leader of a warring faction, NOT an arrest by law enforcement.
Read the original here.
Power Line - Stop Digging! Please!
May 5, 2011Posted by John at 8:07 PM
Someone needs to explain the First Rule of Holes to the Obama administration. Military and intelligence professionals executed an important mission brilliantly, carrying out their assigned task of killing Osama bin Laden and dumping his body into the ocean. Ever since, the administration has undercut the professionals' achievement with a succession of now-inoperative accounts of the raid's climactic moments.
First we had John Brennan spinning a tale about bin Laden blazing away at the SEALs while using his wife--now deceased--as a human shield. Every detail of that story turned out to be false. Then the administration claimed that it looked as though Osama was reaching for a gun, so the SEALs had to shoot him. Next, the theory was that Osama was clothed, not naked, so he could have had a bomb under his clothes and had to be shot. Another iteration emerged this afternoon, as an administration official toldAFP[1] that guns were found in the room where Obama was shot, so he was a threat to the SEALs:
US Navy SEALs who led a raid on Osama bin Laden's compound found an AK-47 and a pistol in his room, a US official told AFP Thursday, offering more details about the operation.
"He had weapons in his room, more than one," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He was not compliant. He did not surrender," the official said. ...
Given the possible threats, the gunfire from the courier and Bin Laden's reputation, "the team made the right decision."
All of these narratives--apart from the disadvantage, in some instances, of being untrue--share a common defect. They assume that the SEALs are in the dock as accused murderers, and need to be seen as acting in self-defense. This is ridiculous. The SEALs may have acted in "national self defense," the doctrine that Eric Holder articulated[2] to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But in the immediate context of the raid on bin Laden's compound, the SEALs were not defending themselves. They were on the attack, as they needed to be to carry out their orders. Whether bin Laden was shooting at them, reaching for a gun, clothed or naked, or in the same room with a weapon is irrelevant. The SEALs went into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, and succeeded brilliantly. The administration needs to forget about self-defense and stand behind the orders it gave the military.
References
^ AFP (liten.be)
^ Eric Holder articulated (www.powerlineblog.com)
Read the original here.
Power Line - Stop Digging! Please!
May 5, 2011Posted by John at 8:07 PM
Someone needs to explain the First Rule of Holes to the Obama administration. Military and intelligence professionals executed an important mission brilliantly, carrying out their assigned task of killing Osama bin Laden and dumping his body into the ocean. Ever since, the administration has undercut the professionals' achievement with a succession of now-inoperative accounts of the raid's climactic moments.
First we had John Brennan spinning a tale about bin Laden blazing away at the SEALs while using his wife--now deceased--as a human shield. Every detail of that story turned out to be false. Then the administration claimed that it looked as though Osama was reaching for a gun, so the SEALs had to shoot him. Next, the theory was that Osama was clothed, not naked, so he could have had a bomb under his clothes and had to be shot. Another iteration emerged this afternoon, as an administration official toldAFP[1] that guns were found in the room where Obama was shot, so he was a threat to the SEALs:
US Navy SEALs who led a raid on Osama bin Laden's compound found an AK-47 and a pistol in his room, a US official told AFP Thursday, offering more details about the operation.
"He had weapons in his room, more than one," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He was not compliant. He did not surrender," the official said. ...
Given the possible threats, the gunfire from the courier and Bin Laden's reputation, "the team made the right decision."
All of these narratives--apart from the disadvantage, in some instances, of being untrue--share a common defect. They assume that the SEALs are in the dock as accused murderers, and need to be seen as acting in self-defense. This is ridiculous. The SEALs may have acted in "national self defense," the doctrine that Eric Holder articulated[2] to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But in the immediate context of the raid on bin Laden's compound, the SEALs were not defending themselves. They were on the attack, as they needed to be to carry out their orders. Whether bin Laden was shooting at them, reaching for a gun, clothed or naked, or in the same room with a weapon is irrelevant. The SEALs went into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, and succeeded brilliantly. The administration needs to forget about self-defense and stand behind the orders it gave the military.
References
^ AFP (liten.be)
^ Eric Holder articulated (www.powerlineblog.com)
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Who is evil?
The left had no problem deeming former President George Bush as evil. The boolean search for "George Bush is evil" yields 32,000+ hits. However, ABC can't find 1 person who can definitively say they think that Osama Bin Laden was evil. This is just ridiculous, PC, moral relativism run amok. I agree with Dennis Miller, "There is good in the world, there is evil in the world, and when good has a chance to hinder evil in any way, they must take it."
Read the original here.
ABC News Religion Correspondent: I Can't Judge Whether Bin Laden Was 'Evil'
According to the man ABC News[1] relies on for religious analysis, it's impossible to say whether Osama bin Laden was "evil." Father Edward Beck[2], the network's religion correspondent, appeared with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday and offered moral equivalence on the subject of the terrorist's death.
When the O'Reilly Factor anchor pressed Beck on whether bin Laden truly represented malevolence, Beck replied, "That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil."
O'Reilly pressed Beck on this point, prompting the ABC News analyst to assert, "No, I think that's up to God to ultimately decide who's evil."
After asserting that the United States shouldn't celebrate bin Laden's death "like a Super Bowl," Beck compared American happiness over the terrorist's death to Middle East examples, such as celebrating on 9/11: "Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mid East who celebrate when America falls?"
(This prompted Bernie Goldberg, who appeared in an unrelated O'Reilly Factor segment, to interject about Beck. He derided, "The idea that... the Palestinians celebrated when they attacked the World Trade Center, we're just as bad if we celebrate when Osama bin Laden takes a bullet to the head. That's pathetic. That's pathetic. I mean, and that isn't Catholicism, that's liberalism.")
Beck, in his role as the religion correspondent, has appeared on Good Morning America and other ABC News programs. He has co-hosted Faith Matters Now, a web-only program for the network's religion section. This is the man ABC looks to on spiritual issues? Someone who won't even go so far as to declare bin Laden to be an evil man?
On June 02, 2008[3], Beck appeared on Good morning America to explain away some of the radical statements heard at Barack Obama's now former church.
A transcript of the May 03 O'Reilly Factor segment can be found below:
BILL O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight. Military action always controversial in some circles and after Osama bin Laden was killed by the Navy SEALs, a few people had a problem with it, citing moral grounds. One of them is Father Edward Beck, religion contributor for ABC News. He joins us know. Now, you told our guys -- and I'm just going to quote you here -- "I'm uncomfortable with killing of Osama bin Laden being celebrated like a Super Bowl win," and you're referring to the people in front of the White House and other places, Times Square, very jubilant about bin Laden dying. Why are you uncomfortable with that?
FATHER EDWARD BECK: Rudolph Giuliani said he went to a church, which I think is a more appropriate action. It cannot be celebrated like a Super Bowl because it's a tragedy that this happened. Just because Osama killed all of these people, understandable a tragedy, killing him does not justify that action.
O'REILLY: OK. You see I disagree with you 180 degrees here. And you remember after World War II, V-Day, VJ-Day and everybody was celebrating the end of the war because we had defeated our enemies who had tried to kill us and slaughtered countless millions of civilians. That celebration, entirely appropriate. Wasn't it? It was an appropriate celebration, was it not?
BECK: Bill, when you watch-
O'REILLY: For victory over the evil forces, wasn't it?
BECK: Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mideast who celebrate when America falls?
O'REILLY: Well, here's why I think you're wrong on this.
BECK: This is not a Christian perspective.
O'REILLY: I think I'm a good Christian and I was very happy to see bin Laden killed because he was killing people and he was capable of doing more killing.
BECK: But how does his death then justify what happened to 3,000 people? You'd have to kill 3,000 people for you to talk about justice.
O'REILLY: No, no. If you -- if there is a criminal enterprise underway which al Qaeda certainly is, you would see that point, right?
BECK: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. And the criminal enterprise cannot be stopped with any other method other than killing, then you have to kill. And when-
BECK: But you don't celebrate it.
O'REILLY: -the criminal enterprise is stopped- why not? That is a good thing.
BECK: Because it's maybe a necessary evil. But, what about love of enemies? What about Jesus from the cross saying these are my killers. These are terrorists. But I forgive them. They know not what to do.
O'REILLY: Personal forgiveness something the 9/11 families are entitled to. I'm not going to be -- entreat (ph) that because I didn't lose anybody in my family. But I'll tell you what, Jesus had rendered a Caesar and that meant that if you have to defend your country you are OK with defending your country. That's not an anti-Christian thing to do.
BECK: That was about money. He said love of enemies. Pray for those persecute you.
O'REILLY: But render to Caesar was a general thing- a general thing, all right, where the government takes care of the government, I take care of spiritual matters. You can't tell me that Jesus Christ doesn't want to see al Qaeda defeated. You can't sit there and tell me that.
BECK: I would say God is not going to take sides like we take sides. God has a different kind of justice.
O'REILLY: I mean, there's got to be a good and an evil in the world. You telling me that God doesn't take sides against evil? Is that what you're telling me?
BECK: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that we don't judge what the evil is and how it's acted upon.
O'REILLY: Who is we? I judge evil. Who's we?
BECK: By what standards?
O'REILLY: By the standards of hurting innocent people. That's how I judge it.
BECK: Christianity says you can't kill somebody. All life is sacred.
O'REILLY: Christianity says I have a right to defend myself and so does my country.
BECK: Yes, as in a last resort. If that means killing somebody-
O'REILLY: And that's what it was.
BECK: Don't celebrate it. It's a necessary evil. Don't cheer about it like we're in a bar.
O'REILLY: You're celebrating a victory of your country. You're celebrating a victory of your country.
BECK: That's not what they're celebrating. They wanted Osama bin Laden dead. Now that he's dead, let's raise the flag. Well, you know what? It may be good that he's dead.
O'REILLY: I think you misinterpreted that, Father, with all due respect. I think that they were celebrating a victory over evil. And I don't think you understand, with all due respect again, the evil that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had brought to the world. I'll give you the last word.
BECK: Bill, my father was a New York City firefighter. After 9/11 I was in the triage center at Chelsea Piers. I was counseling people. I've talked to people who've lost sons at 9/11.
O'REILLY: Let me ask you this.
BECK: I know what that's like.
O'REILLY: Was bin Laden evil?
BECK: That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil --
O'REILLY: Not for you to judge?
BECK: His actions certainly were evil and they caused a lot of harm and disruption.
O'REILLY: So you can't as a human being make a determination on good and evil? You cannot do that?
BECK: No, I think that's up God to ultimately decide who's evil.
O'REILLY: See? I can and I'm -- I'll probably be punished for it by the deity but --
BECK: I see a man's actions. I don't know a man's heart ever, totally.
O'REILLY: Well, I think I know bin Laden's heart.
BECK: I can say the actions were wrong and despicable and needed to be punished.
O'REILLY: All right. You're a standup guy for coming in. I appreciate it.
References
^ ABC News (abcnews.go.com)
^ Father Edward Beck (fatheredwardbeck.blogspot.com)
^ June 02, 2008 (newsbusters.org)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/04/abc-news-religion-correspondent-i-cant-judge-whether-bin-laden-was-e#ixzz1LUK9xmPf
Read the original here.
ABC News Religion Correspondent: I Can't Judge Whether Bin Laden Was 'Evil'
According to the man ABC News[1] relies on for religious analysis, it's impossible to say whether Osama bin Laden was "evil." Father Edward Beck[2], the network's religion correspondent, appeared with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday and offered moral equivalence on the subject of the terrorist's death.
When the O'Reilly Factor anchor pressed Beck on whether bin Laden truly represented malevolence, Beck replied, "That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil."
O'Reilly pressed Beck on this point, prompting the ABC News analyst to assert, "No, I think that's up to God to ultimately decide who's evil."
After asserting that the United States shouldn't celebrate bin Laden's death "like a Super Bowl," Beck compared American happiness over the terrorist's death to Middle East examples, such as celebrating on 9/11: "Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mid East who celebrate when America falls?"
(This prompted Bernie Goldberg, who appeared in an unrelated O'Reilly Factor segment, to interject about Beck. He derided, "The idea that... the Palestinians celebrated when they attacked the World Trade Center, we're just as bad if we celebrate when Osama bin Laden takes a bullet to the head. That's pathetic. That's pathetic. I mean, and that isn't Catholicism, that's liberalism.")
Beck, in his role as the religion correspondent, has appeared on Good Morning America and other ABC News programs. He has co-hosted Faith Matters Now, a web-only program for the network's religion section. This is the man ABC looks to on spiritual issues? Someone who won't even go so far as to declare bin Laden to be an evil man?
On June 02, 2008[3], Beck appeared on Good morning America to explain away some of the radical statements heard at Barack Obama's now former church.
A transcript of the May 03 O'Reilly Factor segment can be found below:
BILL O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight. Military action always controversial in some circles and after Osama bin Laden was killed by the Navy SEALs, a few people had a problem with it, citing moral grounds. One of them is Father Edward Beck, religion contributor for ABC News. He joins us know. Now, you told our guys -- and I'm just going to quote you here -- "I'm uncomfortable with killing of Osama bin Laden being celebrated like a Super Bowl win," and you're referring to the people in front of the White House and other places, Times Square, very jubilant about bin Laden dying. Why are you uncomfortable with that?
FATHER EDWARD BECK: Rudolph Giuliani said he went to a church, which I think is a more appropriate action. It cannot be celebrated like a Super Bowl because it's a tragedy that this happened. Just because Osama killed all of these people, understandable a tragedy, killing him does not justify that action.
O'REILLY: OK. You see I disagree with you 180 degrees here. And you remember after World War II, V-Day, VJ-Day and everybody was celebrating the end of the war because we had defeated our enemies who had tried to kill us and slaughtered countless millions of civilians. That celebration, entirely appropriate. Wasn't it? It was an appropriate celebration, was it not?
BECK: Bill, when you watch-
O'REILLY: For victory over the evil forces, wasn't it?
BECK: Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mideast who celebrate when America falls?
O'REILLY: Well, here's why I think you're wrong on this.
BECK: This is not a Christian perspective.
O'REILLY: I think I'm a good Christian and I was very happy to see bin Laden killed because he was killing people and he was capable of doing more killing.
BECK: But how does his death then justify what happened to 3,000 people? You'd have to kill 3,000 people for you to talk about justice.
O'REILLY: No, no. If you -- if there is a criminal enterprise underway which al Qaeda certainly is, you would see that point, right?
BECK: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. And the criminal enterprise cannot be stopped with any other method other than killing, then you have to kill. And when-
BECK: But you don't celebrate it.
O'REILLY: -the criminal enterprise is stopped- why not? That is a good thing.
BECK: Because it's maybe a necessary evil. But, what about love of enemies? What about Jesus from the cross saying these are my killers. These are terrorists. But I forgive them. They know not what to do.
O'REILLY: Personal forgiveness something the 9/11 families are entitled to. I'm not going to be -- entreat (ph) that because I didn't lose anybody in my family. But I'll tell you what, Jesus had rendered a Caesar and that meant that if you have to defend your country you are OK with defending your country. That's not an anti-Christian thing to do.
BECK: That was about money. He said love of enemies. Pray for those persecute you.
O'REILLY: But render to Caesar was a general thing- a general thing, all right, where the government takes care of the government, I take care of spiritual matters. You can't tell me that Jesus Christ doesn't want to see al Qaeda defeated. You can't sit there and tell me that.
BECK: I would say God is not going to take sides like we take sides. God has a different kind of justice.
O'REILLY: I mean, there's got to be a good and an evil in the world. You telling me that God doesn't take sides against evil? Is that what you're telling me?
BECK: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that we don't judge what the evil is and how it's acted upon.
O'REILLY: Who is we? I judge evil. Who's we?
BECK: By what standards?
O'REILLY: By the standards of hurting innocent people. That's how I judge it.
BECK: Christianity says you can't kill somebody. All life is sacred.
O'REILLY: Christianity says I have a right to defend myself and so does my country.
BECK: Yes, as in a last resort. If that means killing somebody-
O'REILLY: And that's what it was.
BECK: Don't celebrate it. It's a necessary evil. Don't cheer about it like we're in a bar.
O'REILLY: You're celebrating a victory of your country. You're celebrating a victory of your country.
BECK: That's not what they're celebrating. They wanted Osama bin Laden dead. Now that he's dead, let's raise the flag. Well, you know what? It may be good that he's dead.
O'REILLY: I think you misinterpreted that, Father, with all due respect. I think that they were celebrating a victory over evil. And I don't think you understand, with all due respect again, the evil that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had brought to the world. I'll give you the last word.
BECK: Bill, my father was a New York City firefighter. After 9/11 I was in the triage center at Chelsea Piers. I was counseling people. I've talked to people who've lost sons at 9/11.
O'REILLY: Let me ask you this.
BECK: I know what that's like.
O'REILLY: Was bin Laden evil?
BECK: That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil --
O'REILLY: Not for you to judge?
BECK: His actions certainly were evil and they caused a lot of harm and disruption.
O'REILLY: So you can't as a human being make a determination on good and evil? You cannot do that?
BECK: No, I think that's up God to ultimately decide who's evil.
O'REILLY: See? I can and I'm -- I'll probably be punished for it by the deity but --
BECK: I see a man's actions. I don't know a man's heart ever, totally.
O'REILLY: Well, I think I know bin Laden's heart.
BECK: I can say the actions were wrong and despicable and needed to be punished.
O'REILLY: All right. You're a standup guy for coming in. I appreciate it.
References
^ ABC News (abcnews.go.com)
^ Father Edward Beck (fatheredwardbeck.blogspot.com)
^ June 02, 2008 (newsbusters.org)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/04/abc-news-religion-correspondent-i-cant-judge-whether-bin-laden-was-e#ixzz1LUK9xmPf
Not so good for Michigan
Read the original here.
Nearly Half Of Detroiters Can’t Read « CBS Detroit
DETROIT (WWJ) – According to a new report, 47 percent of Detroiters are ”functionally illiterate.” The alarming new statistics were released by the Detroit[1] Regional Workforce Fund on Wednesday.
WWJ Newsradio 950 spoke with the Fund’s Director, Karen Tyler-Ruiz, who explained exactly what this means.
“Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting ajob[2] — those types of basic everyday (things). Reading a prescription; what’s on the bottle, how many you should take… just your basic everyday tasks,” she said.
“I don’t really know how[3] they get by, but they do. Are they getting by well? Well, that’s another question,” Tyler-Ruiz said.
Some of the Detroit suburbs also have high numbers of functionally illiterate: 34 percent in Pontiac and 24 percent in Southfield.
“For other major urban areas, we are a little bit on the high side… We compare, slightly higher, to Washington D.C.’s urban population, in certain ZIP codes in Washington D.C. and in Cleveland,” she said.
Tyler-Ruiz said only 10 percent of those who can’t read have gotten any help to resolve it.
The report will be used to provide better training for local workers.
- View a copy of the report[4] - (.pdf format)
References
^ Detroit (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ job (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ know how (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ View a copy of the report (cbsdetroit.files.wordpress.com)
Nearly Half Of Detroiters Can’t Read « CBS Detroit
DETROIT (WWJ) – According to a new report, 47 percent of Detroiters are ”functionally illiterate.” The alarming new statistics were released by the Detroit[1] Regional Workforce Fund on Wednesday.
WWJ Newsradio 950 spoke with the Fund’s Director, Karen Tyler-Ruiz, who explained exactly what this means.
“Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting ajob[2] — those types of basic everyday (things). Reading a prescription; what’s on the bottle, how many you should take… just your basic everyday tasks,” she said.
“I don’t really know how[3] they get by, but they do. Are they getting by well? Well, that’s another question,” Tyler-Ruiz said.
Some of the Detroit suburbs also have high numbers of functionally illiterate: 34 percent in Pontiac and 24 percent in Southfield.
“For other major urban areas, we are a little bit on the high side… We compare, slightly higher, to Washington D.C.’s urban population, in certain ZIP codes in Washington D.C. and in Cleveland,” she said.
Tyler-Ruiz said only 10 percent of those who can’t read have gotten any help to resolve it.
The report will be used to provide better training for local workers.
- View a copy of the report[4] - (.pdf format)
References
^ Detroit (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ job (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ know how (detroit.cbslocal.com)
^ View a copy of the report (cbsdetroit.files.wordpress.com)
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
VP Biden confirms SEALs did OBL Takedown
Read the original here.
Joe Biden Opens His Mouth About US Navy SEALs – Telegraph Blogs
Since President Barack Obama announced that “a small team of Americans” had killed Osama bin Laden, US government officials have carefully stuck to the line that they will not talk about which units were involved.
Obama did not say it was the SEALs. In numerous television appearances, Obama’s counter-terrorism chief John Brennan didn’t and his deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough didn’t. Despite the numerous news reports that named the SEALs, none of the anonymous briefers from the CIA and Pentagon would confirm it.
Here’s a typical response to a question about the SEALs from a senior defence official in a Pentagon briefing on Monday:
QUESTION: Can I ask you, can you confirm that it was a (Navy) SEAL team? And was this a specially designated team that had been practising or reviewing intelligence for a while and they were the unit of choice?
SENIOR DEFENCE OFFICIAL: Not going to comment on units or numbers.
But here’s what the legendarily verbose and loose-lipped Vice President Joe Biden said at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel last night to mark the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council:
Let me briefly acknowledge tonight’s distinguished honorees. Admiral James Stavridis is a, is the real deal. He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.
And:
Folks, I’d be remiss also if I didn’t say an extra word about the incredible events, extraordinary events of this past Sunday. As Vice President of the United States, as an American, I was in absolute awe of the capacity and dedication of the entire team, both the intelligence community, the CIA, the SEALs. It just was extraordinary.
Joe Biden Opens His Mouth About US Navy SEALs – Telegraph Blogs
Since President Barack Obama announced that “a small team of Americans” had killed Osama bin Laden, US government officials have carefully stuck to the line that they will not talk about which units were involved.
Obama did not say it was the SEALs. In numerous television appearances, Obama’s counter-terrorism chief John Brennan didn’t and his deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough didn’t. Despite the numerous news reports that named the SEALs, none of the anonymous briefers from the CIA and Pentagon would confirm it.
Here’s a typical response to a question about the SEALs from a senior defence official in a Pentagon briefing on Monday:
QUESTION: Can I ask you, can you confirm that it was a (Navy) SEAL team? And was this a specially designated team that had been practising or reviewing intelligence for a while and they were the unit of choice?
SENIOR DEFENCE OFFICIAL: Not going to comment on units or numbers.
But here’s what the legendarily verbose and loose-lipped Vice President Joe Biden said at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel last night to mark the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council:
Let me briefly acknowledge tonight’s distinguished honorees. Admiral James Stavridis is a, is the real deal. He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.
And:
Folks, I’d be remiss also if I didn’t say an extra word about the incredible events, extraordinary events of this past Sunday. As Vice President of the United States, as an American, I was in absolute awe of the capacity and dedication of the entire team, both the intelligence community, the CIA, the SEALs. It just was extraordinary.
When to release photos?
If the President is so concerned about inflaming the Muslim world (I'm curious to know who isn't inflamed by a bullet to the face, but would be about the picture of it), then why wasn't he concerned about the release of photos in April 2009?
via UK Telegraph
Barack Obama To Release Up To 2,000 Photographs Of Prisoner Abuse
* Female soldiers posing with hooded, shackled prisoners who were stripped naked
* Hooded prisoners on transport planes with Playboy magazines opened to pictures of nude women on their laps
The administration initially planned to release only the 21 photos sought by the ACLU, but General David Petraeus ordered that all 2,000 photographs be released to keep from "dragging this issue out forever".
The Pentagon fears a backlash in the Middle East similar to the one provoked by pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, near Baghdad, in 2004 which became emblematic of American mistakes in Iraq.
Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, said that "these photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib".
The Bush administration had resisted releasing the images to the public, contending that the disclosure would fuel anti-American feeling and violate US obligations towards prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. Several people have already been tried at courts martial for using guns to threaten detainees in cases connected to the photographs.
Mr Obama's decision could undercut his struggle to persuade Congress not to institute a "truth commission" to investigate alleged prisoner abuse and force former Bush administration officials to testify and account for their actions and advice.
Momentum for a major public inquiry was dramatically increased when Mr Obama released four memos last week written by three officials from Mr Bush's Justice Department.
Running to 126 pages, they contained the legal rationale for the CIA's methods of extracting information from al-Qaeda suspects used between 2002 and 2005.
The methods, eventually prohibited by the Bush administration, included sleep deprivation for up to 11 days, forced nudity and stress positions as well as "waterboarding", a form of simulated drowning in which "water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches" for "20 to 40 seconds".
In the memos, it was revealed that the waterboarding technique had been used 266 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, two senior al-Qaeda prisoners.
Other possible disclosures as a result of the ACLU legal action include transcripts of prisoner interrogations, a secret CIA inspector general's report and materials from a Justice Department investigation into detainee abuse.
The Obama administration, under fierce pressure from the Left and some congressional Democrats, faces a tough decision about whether to release the information in full, redact parts of it or continue the Bush administration's court battle to keep it secret.
Mr Obama's decision to release the four memos came after the most divisive argument yet in his young administration, which passes the landmark of 100 days next Wednesday.
He was opposed by Leon Panetta, his CIA chief, who argued for redactions of key passages, and John Brennan, a former senior CIA official who is now the top counter-terrorism adviser at the White House.
The most enthusiastic support for the release came from Eric Holder, Mr Obama's attorney general and the man who will decide whether former Bush administration officials should face prosecution, and his legal counsel Gregory Craig.
Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, and Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, are said to have supported Mr Obama with some reservations. It subsequently emerged that Adml Blair had briefed his staff that some important information was extracted from prisoners during harsh interrogations.
via UK Telegraph
Barack Obama To Release Up To 2,000 Photographs Of Prisoner Abuse
* Female soldiers posing with hooded, shackled prisoners who were stripped naked
* Hooded prisoners on transport planes with Playboy magazines opened to pictures of nude women on their laps
The administration initially planned to release only the 21 photos sought by the ACLU, but General David Petraeus ordered that all 2,000 photographs be released to keep from "dragging this issue out forever".
The Pentagon fears a backlash in the Middle East similar to the one provoked by pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, near Baghdad, in 2004 which became emblematic of American mistakes in Iraq.
Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, said that "these photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib".
The Bush administration had resisted releasing the images to the public, contending that the disclosure would fuel anti-American feeling and violate US obligations towards prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. Several people have already been tried at courts martial for using guns to threaten detainees in cases connected to the photographs.
Mr Obama's decision could undercut his struggle to persuade Congress not to institute a "truth commission" to investigate alleged prisoner abuse and force former Bush administration officials to testify and account for their actions and advice.
Momentum for a major public inquiry was dramatically increased when Mr Obama released four memos last week written by three officials from Mr Bush's Justice Department.
Running to 126 pages, they contained the legal rationale for the CIA's methods of extracting information from al-Qaeda suspects used between 2002 and 2005.
The methods, eventually prohibited by the Bush administration, included sleep deprivation for up to 11 days, forced nudity and stress positions as well as "waterboarding", a form of simulated drowning in which "water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches" for "20 to 40 seconds".
In the memos, it was revealed that the waterboarding technique had been used 266 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, two senior al-Qaeda prisoners.
Other possible disclosures as a result of the ACLU legal action include transcripts of prisoner interrogations, a secret CIA inspector general's report and materials from a Justice Department investigation into detainee abuse.
The Obama administration, under fierce pressure from the Left and some congressional Democrats, faces a tough decision about whether to release the information in full, redact parts of it or continue the Bush administration's court battle to keep it secret.
Mr Obama's decision to release the four memos came after the most divisive argument yet in his young administration, which passes the landmark of 100 days next Wednesday.
He was opposed by Leon Panetta, his CIA chief, who argued for redactions of key passages, and John Brennan, a former senior CIA official who is now the top counter-terrorism adviser at the White House.
The most enthusiastic support for the release came from Eric Holder, Mr Obama's attorney general and the man who will decide whether former Bush administration officials should face prosecution, and his legal counsel Gregory Craig.
Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, and Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, are said to have supported Mr Obama with some reservations. It subsequently emerged that Adml Blair had briefed his staff that some important information was extracted from prisoners during harsh interrogations.
What is self defense?
Read the original here.
Power Line - Self-Defense? Why Didn't We Think Of That?
May 4, 2011Posted by John at 11:33 AM
In 2009, Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor[1] to look into criminal charges against CIA interrogators who, during the Bush administration, allegedly were mean to terrorists. Holder piously explained that it was all about the rule of law:
"I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial," Holder added. "As attorney general, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law."
But that was then, and this is now. Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, and was asked about the legal justification for killing Osama bin Laden. No problem, he explained[2]:
The killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. military forces was an act of national self-defense and he made no attempt to surrender, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.
"It was justified as an act of national self-defense," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee, citing bin Laden's admission of being involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
"If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate," he said.
"National self-defense!" Not regular self-defense, which perhaps would apply if Obama had been armed and had threatened the SEALs. Rather, "national self-defense," which means it is fine to drop in on his compound, corner him and blow his head off. Where was the doctrine of "national self-defense" when Holder was itching to put CIA interrogators in prison for trying to stop new terrorist attacks? Presumably if "national self-defense" justifies shooting a terrorist like bin Laden, it also justifies waterboarding a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or putting a caterpillar in his cell. Where was that doctrine when the Bush administration needed it?
Holder's breezy responses this morning highlight the incoherence of the Obama administration's approach to national security issues. There is no factor other than raw partisanship that can explain the administration's ever-shifting interpretations of the "rule of law."
We were right, of course, to kill bin Laden, as 86 percent of Americans[3] agree. The SEALs were sent to Pakistan to kill bin Laden, and they did a magnificent job of it. No one in the administration--least of all President Obama--wanted bin Laden to languish at Guantanamo Bay, or, worse, be handed over to Eric Holder for endless legal proceedings. Can you imagine the spectacle? Bin Laden would have had to fight off the liberal lawyers lined up to represent him with a stick. His lawyers would have made O.J. Simpson's "dream team" look like your local public defender's office. The spectacle would have been seen by everyone as the reductio ad absurdum of the Obama administration's anti-terror policies, and likely would have ensured Obama's defeat in 2012.
So the administration did the right thing, and killed bin Laden. "National self-defense" is a perfectly good rationale for forgoing what in other contexts the administration has called due process, although in this case, revenge is probably a better one. But it is about time for President Obama to acknowledge that national self-defense also justified many other policies, whose effectiveness is increasingly beyond question, that he has self-righteously denounced.
References
^ appointed a special prosecutor (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ he explained (www.reuters.com)
^ 86 percent of Americans (www.rasmussenreports.com)
Power Line - Self-Defense? Why Didn't We Think Of That?
May 4, 2011Posted by John at 11:33 AM
In 2009, Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor[1] to look into criminal charges against CIA interrogators who, during the Bush administration, allegedly were mean to terrorists. Holder piously explained that it was all about the rule of law:
"I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial," Holder added. "As attorney general, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law."
But that was then, and this is now. Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, and was asked about the legal justification for killing Osama bin Laden. No problem, he explained[2]:
The killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. military forces was an act of national self-defense and he made no attempt to surrender, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.
"It was justified as an act of national self-defense," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee, citing bin Laden's admission of being involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
"If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate," he said.
"National self-defense!" Not regular self-defense, which perhaps would apply if Obama had been armed and had threatened the SEALs. Rather, "national self-defense," which means it is fine to drop in on his compound, corner him and blow his head off. Where was the doctrine of "national self-defense" when Holder was itching to put CIA interrogators in prison for trying to stop new terrorist attacks? Presumably if "national self-defense" justifies shooting a terrorist like bin Laden, it also justifies waterboarding a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or putting a caterpillar in his cell. Where was that doctrine when the Bush administration needed it?
Holder's breezy responses this morning highlight the incoherence of the Obama administration's approach to national security issues. There is no factor other than raw partisanship that can explain the administration's ever-shifting interpretations of the "rule of law."
We were right, of course, to kill bin Laden, as 86 percent of Americans[3] agree. The SEALs were sent to Pakistan to kill bin Laden, and they did a magnificent job of it. No one in the administration--least of all President Obama--wanted bin Laden to languish at Guantanamo Bay, or, worse, be handed over to Eric Holder for endless legal proceedings. Can you imagine the spectacle? Bin Laden would have had to fight off the liberal lawyers lined up to represent him with a stick. His lawyers would have made O.J. Simpson's "dream team" look like your local public defender's office. The spectacle would have been seen by everyone as the reductio ad absurdum of the Obama administration's anti-terror policies, and likely would have ensured Obama's defeat in 2012.
So the administration did the right thing, and killed bin Laden. "National self-defense" is a perfectly good rationale for forgoing what in other contexts the administration has called due process, although in this case, revenge is probably a better one. But it is about time for President Obama to acknowledge that national self-defense also justified many other policies, whose effectiveness is increasingly beyond question, that he has self-righteously denounced.
References
^ appointed a special prosecutor (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ he explained (www.reuters.com)
^ 86 percent of Americans (www.rasmussenreports.com)
Awesome Dogs
Correction. The dogs with Titanium "crowns" are to correct a dental problem, not to bite terrorists in half. But that is neither here nor there, as the dogs are still awesome.
Read the correction here.
Read the original here.
Hero Dog Helped Snare Osama
The explosive-sniffing dog was strapped to an assault team member as they took on one of their greatest challenges to date.
He was part of the operation in which the elite US Navy Seals lowered themselves down ropes from three Black Hawk helicopters into the terrorist supremo's hideout in the town of Abbottabad, Pakistan, on Sunday.
The world's most wanted man, 54, was shot dead by a Special Forces marksman during the raid.
Heavily armoured hounds — equipped with infrared night-sight cameras — have been used in the past by the top-secret unit.
The war dogs wear ballistic body armour that is said to withstand damage from single and double-edged knives, as well as protective gear which shields them from shrapnel and gunfire.
German Shepherds have been leading the way in SAS raids in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wearing oxygen masks, the pooches have been trained to jump from aircraft at 25,000ft, before seeking out insurgents in hostile environments.
The animals will attack anyone carrying a weapon and have become a pivotal part of special operations as they crawl unnoticed into tunnels or rooms to hunt for enemy combatants.
The cameras on their heads beam live TV pictures back to the troops, providing them with critical information and warning of ambushes.
Dogs were also used in the capture of Saddam Hussein and in the killing of the Iraqi dictator's two sons.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3562677/Fearless-four-legged-war-hero.html#ixzz1LOrkMrsT
Read the correction here.
Read the original here.
Hero Dog Helped Snare Osama
The explosive-sniffing dog was strapped to an assault team member as they took on one of their greatest challenges to date.
He was part of the operation in which the elite US Navy Seals lowered themselves down ropes from three Black Hawk helicopters into the terrorist supremo's hideout in the town of Abbottabad, Pakistan, on Sunday.
The world's most wanted man, 54, was shot dead by a Special Forces marksman during the raid.
Heavily armoured hounds — equipped with infrared night-sight cameras — have been used in the past by the top-secret unit.
The war dogs wear ballistic body armour that is said to withstand damage from single and double-edged knives, as well as protective gear which shields them from shrapnel and gunfire.
German Shepherds have been leading the way in SAS raids in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wearing oxygen masks, the pooches have been trained to jump from aircraft at 25,000ft, before seeking out insurgents in hostile environments.
The animals will attack anyone carrying a weapon and have become a pivotal part of special operations as they crawl unnoticed into tunnels or rooms to hunt for enemy combatants.
The cameras on their heads beam live TV pictures back to the troops, providing them with critical information and warning of ambushes.
Dogs were also used in the capture of Saddam Hussein and in the killing of the Iraqi dictator's two sons.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3562677/Fearless-four-legged-war-hero.html#ixzz1LOrkMrsT
Huntsman One Step Closer to Running « Hot Air
Read the original here.
Huntsman One Step Closer To Running « Hot Air
Jon Huntsman got another dose of White House love at the correspondents dinner this weekend when the president referred to him as, “my buddy, Jon.” While it’s always nice to have friends, that’s probably one friendship the ambassador could do without, particularly since he has now formed his own exploratory committee[1] for a run to take his old boss’s job.
Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman took his first step toward a presidential run Tuesday, creating a federal political action committee that will allow him to travel and raise money in the weeks before he’s expected to formally announce a bid.
Moving swiftly since his return to Washington from Beijing Friday, Huntsman filed paperwork with the Federal Election Committee to begin “H PAC.” In the event he runs, the organization will be the last placeholder before he announces a full-blown campaign.
File this one away as yet another of the worst kept secrets in DC. Of course, as we’ve already seen with other expected candidates like Haley Barbour, setting up your PAC and exploratory committee doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to announce. Huntsman still has several very steep hills to climb.
First of all, his name recognition is still essentially zilch outside of political wonk circles. In the recent “dark horse poll[2]” we referenced here previously, even if you take out all of the front runners, Huntsman still only rings up 3% support. The vast majority of the country still hasn’t even heard of him.
Further, if the responses of the Hot Air community in various polls here are anything to judge by, the base is looking for a confrontational warrior who is ready to take Obama on in an aggressive fashion. Taking a job working for the guy these past couple years doesn’t precisely lend itself to that kind of image coming out of the gate.
But yet again, it’s important to remember that we’re still very early in the process. If Huntsman can raise some serious cash, build a national team and start introducing himself to the general public, who knows? He seems to be a fairly charismatic figure with solid resume, but we’ll have to hear a lot more from him before he’ll have a chance at making the sale.
References
^ formed his own exploratory committee (www.politico.com)
^ dark horse poll (race42012.com)
^ formed his own exploratory committee (www.politico.com)
^ dark horse poll (race42012.com)
Huntsman One Step Closer To Running « Hot Air
Jon Huntsman got another dose of White House love at the correspondents dinner this weekend when the president referred to him as, “my buddy, Jon.” While it’s always nice to have friends, that’s probably one friendship the ambassador could do without, particularly since he has now formed his own exploratory committee[1] for a run to take his old boss’s job.
Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman took his first step toward a presidential run Tuesday, creating a federal political action committee that will allow him to travel and raise money in the weeks before he’s expected to formally announce a bid.
Moving swiftly since his return to Washington from Beijing Friday, Huntsman filed paperwork with the Federal Election Committee to begin “H PAC.” In the event he runs, the organization will be the last placeholder before he announces a full-blown campaign.
File this one away as yet another of the worst kept secrets in DC. Of course, as we’ve already seen with other expected candidates like Haley Barbour, setting up your PAC and exploratory committee doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to announce. Huntsman still has several very steep hills to climb.
First of all, his name recognition is still essentially zilch outside of political wonk circles. In the recent “dark horse poll[2]” we referenced here previously, even if you take out all of the front runners, Huntsman still only rings up 3% support. The vast majority of the country still hasn’t even heard of him.
Further, if the responses of the Hot Air community in various polls here are anything to judge by, the base is looking for a confrontational warrior who is ready to take Obama on in an aggressive fashion. Taking a job working for the guy these past couple years doesn’t precisely lend itself to that kind of image coming out of the gate.
But yet again, it’s important to remember that we’re still very early in the process. If Huntsman can raise some serious cash, build a national team and start introducing himself to the general public, who knows? He seems to be a fairly charismatic figure with solid resume, but we’ll have to hear a lot more from him before he’ll have a chance at making the sale.
References
^ formed his own exploratory committee (www.politico.com)
^ dark horse poll (race42012.com)
^ formed his own exploratory committee (www.politico.com)
^ dark horse poll (race42012.com)
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Osama Bin Laden confirmed killed by US JSOC / CIA Ground OP
Read the original here.
Osama bin Laden Killed by US Strike
Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, President Obama announced tonight.
Bin Laden was located at a compound in Pakistan, which was monitored and when the time was determined to be right, U.S. forces struck, the president said.
"A small team of Americans carried out the operation," Obama said. "After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
DNA testing confirmed that it was bin Laden, sources told ABC News.
Sources said the attack was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command forces working with the CIA.
Vice President Biden briefed Republican congressional leaders this evening on the operation, which had been kept secret until shortly before the president's announcement tonight.
"This is a terrific day for America and quite frankly the whole world that cares about winning the war on terror," former Bush chief of staff Andy Card told ABC News. Card said the news is "particularly significant" for the intelligence community.
"They're the ones who kept their nose to the grindstone and worked very hard to allow this day to be realized ... finally," he said.
Osama bin Laden Killed by US Strike
Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, President Obama announced tonight.
Bin Laden was located at a compound in Pakistan, which was monitored and when the time was determined to be right, U.S. forces struck, the president said.
"A small team of Americans carried out the operation," Obama said. "After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."
DNA testing confirmed that it was bin Laden, sources told ABC News.
Sources said the attack was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command forces working with the CIA.
Vice President Biden briefed Republican congressional leaders this evening on the operation, which had been kept secret until shortly before the president's announcement tonight.
"This is a terrific day for America and quite frankly the whole world that cares about winning the war on terror," former Bush chief of staff Andy Card told ABC News. Card said the news is "particularly significant" for the intelligence community.
"They're the ones who kept their nose to the grindstone and worked very hard to allow this day to be realized ... finally," he said.
Osama Bin Laden reported Killed by US Air Strike
Correction...ABC News confirms Bin Laden killed by ground operation.
Read the original here.
Osama bin Laden Killed by US Strike
By DEAN SCHABNER
May 1, 2011
Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, sources told ABC News.
His death brings to an end a tumultuous life that saw bin Laden go from being the carefree son of a Saudi billionaire, to terrorist leader and the most wanted man in the world.
Bin Laden created and funded the al Qaeda terror network, which was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The Saudi exile had been a man on the run since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan overthrew the ruling Taliban regime, which harbored bin Laden.
In a video filmed two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden gloated about the attack, saying it had exceeded even his "optimistic" calculations.
"Our terrorism is against America. Our terrorism is a blessed terrorism to prevent the unjust person from committing injustice and to stop American support for Israel, which kills our sons," he said in the video.
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden was known as an enemy of the United States. He was suspected of playing large roles in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden in October 2000.
In addition, authorities say bin Laden and his al Qaeda network were involved in previous attacks against U.S. interests -- including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, failed plots to kill President Clinton and the pope, and attacks on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Somalia.
Bin Laden also used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines and Afghanistan, sending "holy warriors" to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia.
Until the capture of one of his top al Qaeda lieutenants in March 2003, there had been no confirmation of his whereabouts -- or even that he was still alive -- since late 2001, when he appeared in a series of videotapes later released to news organizations.
In recent years, several audio recordings of bin Laden have been authenticated by U.S. officials and made public. In an 18-minute videotape weeks before the 2004 U.S. presidential election, bin Laden threatened fresh attacks on the United States as well as his intent to push America into bankruptcy.
Young Man With a Privileged Life
Born in 1957, bin Laden was a son of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest construction magnate. Saudi sources remembered him as a typical young man whose intense religiosity began to emerge as he grew fascinated with the ancient mosques of Mecca and Medina, which his family's company was involved in rebuilding.
Bin Laden attended schools in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, and was encouraged to marry early, at the age of 17, to a Syrian girl and family relation. She was to be the first of several wives. He attended King Abdul-Aziz University and was slated to join the family business. He soon chose a different path, however.
Former classmates of bin Laden recall him as a frequent patron of nightclubs, who drank and caroused with his Saudi royalty cohorts. Yet it was also at the university that bin Laden met the Muslim fundamentalist Sheik Abdullah Azzam, perhaps his first teacher of religious politics and his earliest radical influence.
Azzam spoke fervently of the need to liberate Islamic nations from foreign interests and interventions, and he indoctrinated his disciples in the strictest tenets of the Muslim faith. Bin Laden, however, would eventually cultivate a brand of militant religious extremism that exceeded his teacher's.
He began his relationship with fundamental Islamic groups in the early 1970s. His religious passion exploded in 1979 when Russia invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden left his comfortable Saudi home for Afghanistan to participate in the Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the Soviet Union -- a cause that the United States funded, pouring $3 billion into the Afghan resistance via the CIA.
Turning Against the Saudi Elite
His active opposition to the Soviet Union and his monetary support in purchasing arms, establishing training camps, and building houses, roads and other infrastructure, cemented his position as a hero among many people.
In 1988, he and the Egyptians founded al Qaeda, ("The Base"), a network initially designed to build fighting power for the Afghan resistance.
Bin Laden's politics became more radical during the war. Upon returning to his home in Saudi Arabia, he was widely honored as a hero. But he returned to a country that he perceived had stepped away from the fundamentals of Islam. He declared the Saudi ruling family "insufficiently Islamic" and increasingly advocated the use of violence to force movement toward extremism.
Bin Laden saw American influence in Saudi Arabia as counter to everything he believed. He fell into disfavor with the Saudi government and moved his family to Sudan where he established terrorist camps -- training and equipping terrorists from a dozen countries.
Bin Laden would not compromise his religious beliefs and after three years of continued criticism of the Saudi royal family, his own family disowned him.
Saudi Arabia stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in the mid-'90s for his alleged activities against the royal family, after he had left the country for Sudan. He later was expelled from Sudan under U.S., Egyptian and Saudi pressure. In 1996, he took refuge in Afghanistan.
Back to Afghanistan
Former mujahideen commanders close to the Taliban said that, in Afghanistan, bin Laden bankrolled the hard-line Islamic militia's capture of Kabul under the leadership of Mullah Mohammed Omar. He became one of Omar's most trusted advisers.
One of bin Laden's main strengths among the Muslim people was that followers saw him as a true believer in the faith. In their eyes he transcended other leaders who are viewed as dictators who care little for Islam or the people they lead. Bin Laden entered their lives with a message they can follow and he had the cash at his disposal to carry out that message.
Bin Laden was said to personally control about $300 million of his family's $5 billion fortune. His role as a financier of terrorism is pivotal, experts said, because he revolutionized the financing of extremist movements by forming and funding his own private terror network.
In 1998, he issued an edict openly declared war on America: "We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it."
Bin Laden committed himself to expelling all Americans and Jews from Muslim holy lands. "Osama bin Laden may be the most dangerous non-state terrorist in the world," Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, told ABC News.
Most Wanted Man on Earth
His place in American history is relatively new, but in a short time he left a violent mark.
In 1993, bin Laden was linked by U.S. officials to the bombing of the World Trade Center that killed six people. He is also believed to have orchestrated at least a dozen attacks, some successful, some not. Among the worst of these were two truck bombings, both on Aug. 7, 1998, of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Clinton responded with cruise missile attacks on suspected al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. In November 1998, the U.S. State Department promised $5 million to anyone with information leading to bin Laden's arrest.
Despite attempts to apprehend him, bin Laden eluded the American government and continued plotting against it.
The same group, with bin Laden at the helm, is widely believed to be responsible for the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole.
Then came the stunning Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. On a clear, late-summer morning, two hijacked commercial jets flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. About an hour later, another hijacked airliner slammed into the Pentagon in the nation's capital. A fourth hijacked jet did not reach its target, crashing in western Pennsylvania instead.
When the massive towers collapsed in flames, nearly 3,000 people perished. Among those lost in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania were the 19 hijackers, most of whom have been linked to al Qaeda operations. Bin Laden denied involvement in the attacks, but he praised the hijackers for their acts. The U.S. government nevertheless regarded the terrorist leader as its prime suspect and stepped up the manhunt.
In March 2005, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf admitted that bin Laden had been in Pakistan in the spring of 2004 and was almost captured. Intelligence officials said they believed he was hiding in the rugged mountains that straddle the border with Afghanistan. The U.S. government even launched a series of television and radio ads in Pakistan trumpeting the $25 million reward for his capture.
In January 2006, a purported Bin Laden audio tape was released where a male voice threatens the United States with more attacks on U.S. soil.
Read the original here.
Osama bin Laden Killed by US Strike
By DEAN SCHABNER
May 1, 2011
Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, sources told ABC News.
His death brings to an end a tumultuous life that saw bin Laden go from being the carefree son of a Saudi billionaire, to terrorist leader and the most wanted man in the world.
Bin Laden created and funded the al Qaeda terror network, which was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The Saudi exile had been a man on the run since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan overthrew the ruling Taliban regime, which harbored bin Laden.
In a video filmed two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden gloated about the attack, saying it had exceeded even his "optimistic" calculations.
"Our terrorism is against America. Our terrorism is a blessed terrorism to prevent the unjust person from committing injustice and to stop American support for Israel, which kills our sons," he said in the video.
Long before the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden was known as an enemy of the United States. He was suspected of playing large roles in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden in October 2000.
In addition, authorities say bin Laden and his al Qaeda network were involved in previous attacks against U.S. interests -- including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, failed plots to kill President Clinton and the pope, and attacks on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Somalia.
Bin Laden also used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines and Afghanistan, sending "holy warriors" to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia.
Until the capture of one of his top al Qaeda lieutenants in March 2003, there had been no confirmation of his whereabouts -- or even that he was still alive -- since late 2001, when he appeared in a series of videotapes later released to news organizations.
In recent years, several audio recordings of bin Laden have been authenticated by U.S. officials and made public. In an 18-minute videotape weeks before the 2004 U.S. presidential election, bin Laden threatened fresh attacks on the United States as well as his intent to push America into bankruptcy.
Young Man With a Privileged Life
Born in 1957, bin Laden was a son of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest construction magnate. Saudi sources remembered him as a typical young man whose intense religiosity began to emerge as he grew fascinated with the ancient mosques of Mecca and Medina, which his family's company was involved in rebuilding.
Bin Laden attended schools in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, and was encouraged to marry early, at the age of 17, to a Syrian girl and family relation. She was to be the first of several wives. He attended King Abdul-Aziz University and was slated to join the family business. He soon chose a different path, however.
Former classmates of bin Laden recall him as a frequent patron of nightclubs, who drank and caroused with his Saudi royalty cohorts. Yet it was also at the university that bin Laden met the Muslim fundamentalist Sheik Abdullah Azzam, perhaps his first teacher of religious politics and his earliest radical influence.
Azzam spoke fervently of the need to liberate Islamic nations from foreign interests and interventions, and he indoctrinated his disciples in the strictest tenets of the Muslim faith. Bin Laden, however, would eventually cultivate a brand of militant religious extremism that exceeded his teacher's.
He began his relationship with fundamental Islamic groups in the early 1970s. His religious passion exploded in 1979 when Russia invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden left his comfortable Saudi home for Afghanistan to participate in the Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the Soviet Union -- a cause that the United States funded, pouring $3 billion into the Afghan resistance via the CIA.
Turning Against the Saudi Elite
His active opposition to the Soviet Union and his monetary support in purchasing arms, establishing training camps, and building houses, roads and other infrastructure, cemented his position as a hero among many people.
In 1988, he and the Egyptians founded al Qaeda, ("The Base"), a network initially designed to build fighting power for the Afghan resistance.
Bin Laden's politics became more radical during the war. Upon returning to his home in Saudi Arabia, he was widely honored as a hero. But he returned to a country that he perceived had stepped away from the fundamentals of Islam. He declared the Saudi ruling family "insufficiently Islamic" and increasingly advocated the use of violence to force movement toward extremism.
Bin Laden saw American influence in Saudi Arabia as counter to everything he believed. He fell into disfavor with the Saudi government and moved his family to Sudan where he established terrorist camps -- training and equipping terrorists from a dozen countries.
Bin Laden would not compromise his religious beliefs and after three years of continued criticism of the Saudi royal family, his own family disowned him.
Saudi Arabia stripped bin Laden of his citizenship in the mid-'90s for his alleged activities against the royal family, after he had left the country for Sudan. He later was expelled from Sudan under U.S., Egyptian and Saudi pressure. In 1996, he took refuge in Afghanistan.
Back to Afghanistan
Former mujahideen commanders close to the Taliban said that, in Afghanistan, bin Laden bankrolled the hard-line Islamic militia's capture of Kabul under the leadership of Mullah Mohammed Omar. He became one of Omar's most trusted advisers.
One of bin Laden's main strengths among the Muslim people was that followers saw him as a true believer in the faith. In their eyes he transcended other leaders who are viewed as dictators who care little for Islam or the people they lead. Bin Laden entered their lives with a message they can follow and he had the cash at his disposal to carry out that message.
Bin Laden was said to personally control about $300 million of his family's $5 billion fortune. His role as a financier of terrorism is pivotal, experts said, because he revolutionized the financing of extremist movements by forming and funding his own private terror network.
In 1998, he issued an edict openly declared war on America: "We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it."
Bin Laden committed himself to expelling all Americans and Jews from Muslim holy lands. "Osama bin Laden may be the most dangerous non-state terrorist in the world," Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, told ABC News.
Most Wanted Man on Earth
His place in American history is relatively new, but in a short time he left a violent mark.
In 1993, bin Laden was linked by U.S. officials to the bombing of the World Trade Center that killed six people. He is also believed to have orchestrated at least a dozen attacks, some successful, some not. Among the worst of these were two truck bombings, both on Aug. 7, 1998, of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Clinton responded with cruise missile attacks on suspected al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. In November 1998, the U.S. State Department promised $5 million to anyone with information leading to bin Laden's arrest.
Despite attempts to apprehend him, bin Laden eluded the American government and continued plotting against it.
The same group, with bin Laden at the helm, is widely believed to be responsible for the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole.
Then came the stunning Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. On a clear, late-summer morning, two hijacked commercial jets flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. About an hour later, another hijacked airliner slammed into the Pentagon in the nation's capital. A fourth hijacked jet did not reach its target, crashing in western Pennsylvania instead.
When the massive towers collapsed in flames, nearly 3,000 people perished. Among those lost in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania were the 19 hijackers, most of whom have been linked to al Qaeda operations. Bin Laden denied involvement in the attacks, but he praised the hijackers for their acts. The U.S. government nevertheless regarded the terrorist leader as its prime suspect and stepped up the manhunt.
In March 2005, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf admitted that bin Laden had been in Pakistan in the spring of 2004 and was almost captured. Intelligence officials said they believed he was hiding in the rugged mountains that straddle the border with Afghanistan. The U.S. government even launched a series of television and radio ads in Pakistan trumpeting the $25 million reward for his capture.
In January 2006, a purported Bin Laden audio tape was released where a male voice threatens the United States with more attacks on U.S. soil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
