Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing
In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.’s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.
“We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to,” he said.
The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.
“Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws … Here we’re going to to have to live with reasonable levels of security,” he said, pointing to the use of magnetometers to catch weapons in city schools.
“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”
Still, Mr. Bloomberg argued the attacks shouldn’t be used as an excuse to persecute certain religions or groups.
“What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/04/22/bloomberg-says-interpretation-of-constitution-will-have-to-change-after-boston-bombing/
David Sirota and the Definition of Hate Speech
So much has been written (and is worth reading) about David Sirota’s Salon article, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American,” in particular, posts by Richard Fernandez, Roger Kimball, and my husband, Roger Simon, that Sirota felt compelled to write a second piece, doubling down and attempting to justify his initial thoughts. In spite of all the scrutiny, something fundamental has been overlooked, hiding in plain sight.
It is a sometimes less than admirable but nonetheless completely understandable and basic human reaction to be protective of groups with which one has a connection. When a crime is committed, people often hope that the perpetrator is not a member of said group. I am certain that many parents and relatives of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia hoped that the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook massacre would not turn out to have a mental illness. When Dr. George Tiller, an OB/Gyn and abortion provider, was assassinated in 2009, I am certain that pro-life advocates across the country were hoping his killer would not be an anti-abortion activist. When two bombs were detonated at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, I am certain that millions of Muslims were hoping the terrorists would not be adherents of Islam.
That is not what David Sirota was doing. What if the parent of a mentally ill young person expressed publicly after the rampage at Sandy Hook that he/she hoped the killer was an Islamic terrorist? What if a pro-life advocate publicly hoped that Dr. Tiller’s murderer would turn out to be an African American gang member? That is precisely what David Sirota was doing. And that is hate speech plain and simple.
When it becomes acceptable to wish in public for people you disagree with to be heinous murderers (and without even the slightest bit of evidence), we have crossed a line that doesn’t allow for a functioning democratic society. I’d like to say that I hope David Sirota isn’t an American citizen, because his words of hate shame me, but sadly, the truth is that he is one of us and if we don’t call out his crime, we are condoning it.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/david-sirota-and-the-definition-of-hate-speech/
Who Do the News Media Think You Are?
Who did they think they were fooling? I wondered… a little drunkenly now, I must confess. These high-born Lords of the News, spoon-feeding us their carefully selected diet of euphemisms. Rebels, militia, Palestinians, insurgents, French youths. Did they think we were sitting here, thinking, Hm, I guess those dark-skinned, angry-looking killers named Muhammed all over the world aren’t radical Muslims after all. Now I will not be prejudiced against their religion. Didn’t they understand that we were bouncing on the sofa, screaming all the louder for our frustration, Hey, News-clowns! Tell the truth for once in your useless lives! Say the word! Say some word. Islamo-fascists! Jihadis! Something. Ya dumb f***s. Ya dumb, useless, lying, elitist f***s.– From my novel Empire of Lies [1].
When I was at university, I took a course in journalism for which I was required to write a term paper. My paper — which, as I recall, was cleverly titled “Who is You?” — was on the use of the word “you” in local newscasts. I watched several newscasts for a week, then tried to determine what assumptions lay behind the anchors’ use of the word in sentences such as, “You won’t have to start for work quite so early anymore…” or “You could find some good news in your mailbox this month.”
I thought of this term paper last week as I watched some of the occasionally insane coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing manhunt for two radical Islamic brothers. After nearly tying themselves in knots to avoid mentioning the terror suspects’ religion, one reporter on CNN actually said — I quote from memory but the sentiment is exact– “The suspects are being described as Muslim. That’s just a detail that’s being supplied, it has no more meaning than that.” According to Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters [2], NBC simply didn’t mention Islam at all on its April 19th Nightly News or Today programs. And the Boston Globe actually ran a headline that read, “Islam might have had secondary role in Boston attacks.” [3]
The overwhelming majority of fault line conflicts… have taken place along the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims…. Intense antagonisms and violent conflicts are pervasive between local Muslim and non-Muslim peoples….
Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. The question naturally rises as to whether this pattern of late-twentieth-century conflict between Muslim and non-Muslim groups is equally true of relations between groups from other civilizations. In fact, it is not. Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world’s population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization. The evidence is overwhelming.Now this overwhelming evidence — which the book proceeds to supply — raises any number of questions: Is this violence inherent in Muslim beliefs? Is it part of a larger cultural phenomenon? Is it (like the unimaginable violence in Christendom during the 17th century) a prelude to reform? And how are we to deal with this violence without unduly penalizing the millions of non-violent Muslims? And so on.
But a news organization’s attempt to hide the evidence raises really only one question: Who the hell do these knuckleheads think they’re talking to? Who exactly do they think you are?
Do they think they’re fooling you? Do they think you haven’t noticed this cancer of violence spreading through the Islamic world? Or maybe they think you’re so full of rage and bigotry that you can’t handle the truth without — what? — turning on your decent, patriotic Islamic-American neighbor in a murderous Bad-Day-at-Black-Rock rage?
If that’s what they think of you, why do they even bother trying to push mis-information into your thick, troglodytic skull? If that’s what they think of you, why would they ever believe you could be smart enough to buy the wonderful products they try to sell you between bouts of lying?
And most importantly, if that’s what they think of you, why would you ever watch them at all?
http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2013/04/22/who-do-the-news-media-think-you-are/?singlepage=true
Wasteful Programs that Make You Want To Pull Your Hair Out
This week we finally reached Tax Freedom Day - the day after which American workers begin to make money for themselves and their families instead of the government. While no one begrudges making a reasonable contribution for necessary services, how many of us are confident that our wages earned over the past 108 days are being spent carefully and wisely by the federal government in Washington, D.C?So while we all listen to politicians and government employee unions still bemoaning the modest cuts imposed by the Sequester, let's scroll through the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) annual report highlighting just some of the waste and redundant programs still funded by our tax dollars.
Wasteful Spending Program #1: $14 million on Catfish Inspections
“Government doesn’t have a spending problem.”- President Obama, Jan. 2013
Not only does government have a spending problem, but with a budget shortfall estimated at $845 billion this year, we have a massive wasteful spending problem. Take for instance Catfish Inspections. The GAO reports that we could easily save $14 million annually by consolidating the overlapping inspection processes on Catfish.
The actual cost of our absolutely critical Catfish inspections are more than $100 million every year, but due to a system riddled with inefficiencies we’re throwing money down the stream. The United States Department of Agriculture, under a provision of the 2008 Farm Bill, has the power to inspect and create inspection programs for meat, poultry, and seafood. One inspection process, Catfish, has grown into three separate taxpayer-funded agencies each with overlapping research and responsibilities.
Wasteful Spending Program #2: $4 Billion by not buying in bulk
“Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal.” – White House spokesman Jay Carney
Ask any big American family how they save money on groceries and household supplies, and they’ll probably pull out a Costco card. We understand that buying in bulk will reduce costs, but sadly our Federal Government doesn’t understand that basic tip for saving tax dollars. Instead each department or agency buys many of the same goods independently, dramatically reducing our national purchasing power and wastefully spending your tax dollars. The GAO reports that, “By simply buying together the critical agencies like the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, and Veterans Affairs could save over $4 billion a year.”
Wasteful Spending Program #3: $82 million spent on 7 different camouflage uniforms
“It’s almost a false argument to say that we have a spending problem.” – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
In 2002 the military began a change from two camouflage patterns to the seven service-specific camouflage uniforms, all with different colors and patterns which we have today. The camouflage uniforms look incredibly similar, yet because each branch of the military is developing its own uniforms they are spending nearly $82 million in the design, creation and acquisition of the different uniforms. Instead of the military branches working together, they are all moving separately. The GAO report found that consolidating the uniforms would be more efficient, better protect service members and save millions. During the sequester debate, we made it clear that providing for national defense was a legitimate and vital function of the US Government, but maintained that even the military could trim spending by finding and eliminating inefficiencies. The $82 million in overspending here seems like a great place to start.
Implementing just these three simple changes above would save $5 billion the very first year. With the hundreds of other reforms suggested by the GAO report there would be an annual savings of roughly $250 billion. As Senator Coburn said, “That’s three times what the sequester was. Just in waste, in duplication, in stupidity, and lack of efficiency and effectiveness by the federal government. (It) makes you want to pull your hair out.”
Well said Senator Coburn...well said.
http://townhall.com/columnists/timphillips/2013/04/19/wasteful-programs-that-make-you-want-to-pull-your-hair-out-n1573235/page/full/
Furloughs? IRS sends staff to Vegas for union training
Despite serious concerns that the sequester will force the Internal Revenue Service to furlough key workers five to seven days, the tax collector is paying for staffers to attend union training sessions in Las Vegas and New Orleans, according to documents obtained by a House committee.The oversight subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee said the papers showed that the IRS has approved 20.5 hours of official time for IRS employees to attend training sessions with the National Treasury Employees Union at five conferences between March and May. One training convention takes place at the Flamingo Casino on the Vegas Strip, known for its "Margaritaville Casino."
Also, according to Oversight Chairman Rep. Charles Boustany, while the union said it would pay travel costs, IRS documents show that staffers were told to charge the "Citibank Government Travel Charge Card."
In a letter to Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, Boustany noted the contradiction of the IRS fretting about furloughing workers while sending others to Las Vegas and New Orleans for union conferences. He quoted union President Colleen Kelly's recent claim that the furloughs will hurt "middle class" IRS workers and "their ability to pay their bills and serve the public."
Wrote the Louisiana congressman, "While the IRS considers furloughing employees from their official duties, I am disappointed to learn that agency employees are attending union conferences in New Orleans, Louisiana, Las Vegas, Nevada and other locations, all while on official federal time."
He noted that federal workers are allowed limited union activity on union time, "however IRS employees leaving their official duties to attend union training in Las Vegas on the taxpayer's dime -- while other employees are being furloughed -- seems questionable at best."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/furloughs-irs-sends-staff-to-vegas-for-union-training/article/2527565
Seven Not-So-Fun Facts About the Costs of Public Education
For many years we have expressed education expenditures as “per-pupil spending.” This is a reasonably good way to frame the numbers, though controversy sometimes arises over what is included and what isn’t.The following is a list of different angles on the same spending. All the figures cited are for 2010, courtesy of the National Center of Education Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Census Bureau.
1) Revenues collected by governments for public education in the United States totaled $593.7 billion. About $261.4 billion came from local sources, $258.2 billion from state sources, and $74 billion from federal sources.
2) That’s about $1,922 from each and every American.
3) Or $2,531 from each adult, 18 and older.
4) Or $4,567 from each non-farm American worker on a payroll.
5) That amounts to 11.4 percent of the average worker’s salary, or $2.20 per hour.
6) The average American employee thus works almost one hour every day to fund public schools.
7) It would take the entire salary of 14,842,500 employees to pay for U.S. public schools, equivalent to the entire retail trade workforce.
Public education advocates often speak of school spending as an investment. It’s clear that our portfolio is heavily weighted in the education sector. The shareholders are understandably upset by weak ROIs and incessant margin calls. No wonder they responded by downsizing.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/04/22/seven-not-so-fun-facts-about-the-costs-of-public-education/
PK'S NOTE: This is insane. The world is falling apart economically and this is their priority?
‘Penmanship’ is apparently sexist — who knew?!
Consequently, the term is now banned in Washington state:
Washington state’s governor signed into law on Monday the final piece of a six-year effort to rewrite state laws using gender-neutral vocabulary, replacing terms such as “fisherman” and “freshman” with “fisher” and “first-year student.”
Lawmakers have passed a series of bills since 2007 to root out gender bias from Washington statutes, though a 1983 state mandate required that all laws be written in gender-neutral terms unless a specification of gender was intended.
“This was a much larger effort than I had envisioned. Mankind means man and woman,” said Democratic state Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles of Seattle.
The new gender-neutral references, for example, include “journey-level plumber” instead of “journeyman plumber,” “handwriting” in place of “penmanship,” and “signal operator” for “signalman.”
“There’s no good reason for keeping our legal terms anachronistic and with words that do not respect our current contemporary times,” Kohl-Welles, the 475-page bill’s sponsor, told Reuters.
475 pages.
But it gets worse: There’s an entire agency of state bureaucrats who get paid to do this sort of work:
Several words, however, aren’t easy to replace, said Kyle Thiessen, the state’s code reviser, who heads up the 40-staff Washington Code Reviser’s Office agency.
The state likely won’t change the words “airmen” and “seaman,” for example, because of objections by the state’s Washington Military Department, he said.
Civil engineering terms such as “man hole” and “man lock,” also will not be changed because no common-sense substitutes could easily be found, Thiessen said.
Nearly 3,500 Washington state code sections, out of a total of about 40,000 have been tediously scrubbed of gender bias, although most involve adding pronouns "she" and "her" to augment the existing "he" and "his," Thiessen said.
The bill passed the Democrat-controlled state House 70-22 on April 9 and unanimously cleared the state Senate on February 8 before being signed by Democratic Governor Jay Inslee.
Washington state is the nation's fourth to boast of eliminating gender bias from its official lexicon, following in the footsteps of Florida, North Carolina and Illinois, Kohl-Welles said.
Other states that have passed gender-neutral constitutional mandates include California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Utah, Kohl-Welles said. At least nine other states are currently considering gender-neutral legislation, she said.
"Words matter," said Liz Watson, a National Women's Law Center senior adviser. "This is important in changing hearts and minds."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-usa-gender-neutral-idUSBRE93M00V20130423
Govt. Statistics Change Will Make U.S. Economy Appear 3% Bigger
In a historic shift, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) says in July it will reconfigure the way it calculates government statistics in ways that will instantly make the U.S. economy appear 3% larger than it does presently.“We are essentially rewriting economic history,” said BEA national accounts manager Brent Moulton.
According to the Financial Times, the BEA’s new methodology will include “billion of dollars of intangible assets” such as movie royalties and spending on research and development. The result will be the appearance of a boost in the size of the U.S. economy. The new statistical scheme will also affect “everything from the measured GDP of different U.S. states to the stability of the inflation measure targeted by the Federal Reserve,” reports the Financial Times.
“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings,” said Moulton.
The rejiggered numbers are expected to make the GDP of New Mexico and Maryland appear to leap instantly 10% and 6% respectively. Whether voters will give lawmakers credit for the improved appearance of economic growth or discount the jump as simply a statistical mirage remains to be seen.
The BEA’s new calculation scheme will also include deficits in defined benefit pension plans. “We will now show a liability for underfunded plans, which particularly has large ramifications for the government sector, where both at the state level and the federal level we have large underfunded plans,” said Moulton.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/22/Govt-Statistics-Change-Will-Make-U-S-Economy-Appear-3-Bigger?utm_source=BreitbartNews&utm_medium=facebook
Chinese Sue Fed For Monopoly USD Devaluation
In what could to grow into a class action in US courts, a Chinese woman is suing the Federal Reserve after discovering that the real value of the USD250 she put in an account in 2006 had shrunk by 30%. She claims it was the result of the Fed issuing too much money, and as The South China Morning Post reports, her son Li Zhen, the lawyer, called the lawsuit "litigation for the public good". Alleging "abuse of monopoly in issuing currency," the People's Court of Kunming has yet to rule on the litigants' demand that the Fed cease-and-desist from its quantitative easing policy. While this may seem frivolous, there are some interesting points being made that bear watching, as Li notes, since "the Fed is private institution which enjoys monopoly over the issuing of currency, US Dollar holders can sue it for printing too much money."Via SCMP,
A woman in Kunming, Yunnan province, is trying to sue the United States central bank after discovering that the real value of the US$250 she put in an account in 2006 had shrunk by 30 per cent.
She claims it was a result of the Federal Reserve issuing too much money.
Her attorney, her son Li Zhen , called the lawsuit "litigation for the public good" which aimed to stop the Fed from continuing its quantitive easing policy and promote people's awareness of their rights.
He filed the lawsuit alleging "the abuse of monopoly in issuing currency" last month at the Kunming Intermediate People's Court on behalf of his mother, Liu Hua , but the court has yet to decide whether to officially place the case on file.
...he was the first mainlander to have filed a lawsuit against a foreign country's central bank.
Li, who works at the Yunnan Tongbang Law Firm, said he referred to Black's Law Dictionary, the most cited legal dictionary in the US, and concluded that the Fed is a private institution instead of a government department.
...
"Since the Fed is a private institution which enjoys a monopoly over the issuing of currency, US dollar holders can sue it for printing too much money," he said.
Li said he requested two things from the court - that the Fed halts the abuse of its monopoly over the issuing of dollars and that it makes a "symbolic compensation" of US$1. Asked about the possibility of whether the court will accept the case, Li said it was "difficult to say".
...
He said he was looking for more "victims" like his mother and expected to bring a class action in a US court.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-22/chinese-sue-fed-monopoly-usd-devaluation
Top 5 Problems with the "Comprehensive" Immigration
Bill
The good news is Congress cares about trying to fix our flawed immigration system and broken borders.
The bad news is they want to do it with a solution that looks a lot like Obamacare—the “Gang of Eight” 844-page-plus “comprehensive” bill.
The sad news is that such an “easy button” solution will not improve our immigration system.
History shows that big bills designed to solve everything wind up creating as many problems as they address. They become loaded with payoffs for special interests and often introduce measures that work at cross purposes.
The “comprehensive” bill fails at the start. Here are the top five reasons it cannot be fixed.
1. Amnesty. This bill grants amnesty. It creates a framework for legalization for the estimated 11 million people unlawfully present in the United States. Anyone who was present in the U.S. before 2012 qualifies, but there is too much opportunity for fraud—since there is no proof required that applicants have been here for several years.
2. Fiscal Costs to the Taxpayer. This plan does not account for the government benefits, especially welfare and entitlement benefits, that would be paid to those who are legalized over their lifetimes. The additional costs to taxpayers would be enormous. Some argue that amnesty would bring economic gains, but these would actually be captured by the formerly unlawful immigrants themselves. Legalization brings little economic benefit to the rest of us.
3. Government Spending. The bill is a Trojan horse for government spending, and in some cases, it appears the funding is unrestricted or ill-defined. Just one example is a $6.5 billion “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust,” which includes a $2 billion “slush fund” for border security.
Our federal government currently spends $1 trillion more per year than it takes in, so adding on a new, unlimited spending commitment makes no sense at all. The entire cost of implementing the bill has yet to be determined. Further, the bill trashes fiscal discipline, exploiting “a loophole in the Budget Control Act (BCA) that allows Congress to spend more than allowed under the spending caps adopted in 2011.”
4. “Border Triggers.” The bill requires certification of “border triggers” for stemming the tide of illegal border crossings before additional steps in the legalization process can proceed.
But the Department of Homeland Security has been trying unsuccessfully to define credible metrics for border security since 2004. Even if it had effective “triggers,” that does not guarantee a secure border. Border crossing conditions constantly change. Even if the goal is achieved, there is no guarantee it will stay that way.
Amnesty creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the strategy laid out would drive up the cost of securing the border. Just throwing money at the border does not make sense. The policies adopted on both sides of the border are more important.
For example, the Coast Guard is significantly underfunded and unprepared. America’s coastlines are already seeing a significant increase in illegal entry by sea, a trend that has been growing since 2007.
5. Lawful Immigration Reform. The bill “modernizes” lawful immigration and non-immigration visas. These modernizations include substantially lowering “chain” migration; abolishing the diversity lottery; expanding the visa waiver; increasing high-skill migration; and expanding temporary worker programs.
Reforming the legal immigration system—in principle—is laudable. But trying to craft precise measures in a massive bill like this is difficult. For example, though it sounds innocuous, one provision in the legislation could lead to big problems. The legislation allows documents “issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe” to be used for identity and employment purposes. Numerous Indian tribes exist along the southern border, including the Texas Kickapoo, the Ysleta Del Sur, and, the largest, the Tohona O'Odham. Indian reservations already serve as drug pipelines and have been cited as weak links in border security. Given these issues, does it really make sense to add this exemption to legislation aimed at minimizing identification fraud?
Once we get it right, there is strong bipartisan support that modernizing lawful immigration ought to be a priority. Congress should put its effort into accomplishing that aim—moving forward on an area of strong agreement, while allowing time to debate issues where there is not strong consensus.
We deserve better—all of us. Employers deserve better than having to sift through falsified credentials or risk breaking the law. Families in communities burdened by the impacts of illegal immigration deserve better. In fact, all who cherish a society that is committed to keeping America both a nation of immigrants and a country that respects its laws deserve better.
Immigration reform can move forward on many fronts at the same time, focusing on some commonsense initiatives that begin to address the practical challenges of our immigration system. The key is to begin by working on the solutions on which we can all agree, rather than insisting on a comprehensive approach that divides us.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/23/morning-bell-top-5-problems-with-the-comprehensive-immigration-bill/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Political ploy masked as gratitude? No thank you
Why is the DNC using the bombings to build its mailing list?
You knew it would happen eventually, but so soon?It took only one week for a partisan group — in this case the Democratic Party — to turn the terror bombings in Boston into a crass political ploy.
Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was behind this tasteless tactic, sending out an email and tweet asking people to sign a supposed “thank you note” to the first responders. That would be nice except for the fact that in order to “sign” the note, you have to give the Democratic party your email account and ZIP code.
But that’s not all they’re collecting.
This is a classic “data mining” technique that candidates and political organizations use to target voters to raise money. The thank you note even includes a disclaimer saying the DNC can use the information they get for any political purposes or even advertising.
Pretty clear, right? Not apparently to Democrats, who not only refused to apologize, but actually defended the blatant fundraising pitch while blaming Republicans for “politicizing” the issue by criticizing Democrats.
“Our supporters were looking for an outlet to express their gratitude and support for first responders in the wake of the tragedy in Boston, and collecting messages of thanks to deliver to them we concluded was the best outlet we could give them,” DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said.
Yes, and asking for ZIP codes and emails apparently is a vital part of expressing that gratitude.
“We all came together as Americans to help Boston in crisis and it’s sad to see the Democrats using this tragedy for political purposes,” Republican National Committee spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski said.
No one should be too surprised that politicians are using the horrible deaths of four people and maiming of dozens of others to score political points.
And there’s no doubt that in the future, some Republicans will try to do the same thing. A pathetic GOP state senator from Arkansas used the bombing to blast gun-control advocates.
But it’s noteworthy that politicians in Boston, including Patrick and Menino, and others who performed admirably to save lives and catch the surviving terror suspect, have tried to stay out of the polit ical fray. They know all too well the horror of what the Boston area and victims have been through.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz should apologize immediately and quietly come up to Boston to volunteer to help the victims. Or, even better, how about donating some of the millions the party raises for the victims of this horrible act of terror?
What our city and brave first responders don’t need right now is a phony note of congratulations from Washington blowhards.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/joe_battenfeld/2013/04/battenfeld_political_ploy_masked_as_gratitude_no
Dershowitz: 'I Don’t Understand the Way Some People on the Left Glorify American Terrorists'
Attorney Alan Dershowitz on Monday struck back at Robert Redford and other liberals for their seeming devotion to violent, homegrown activists.Appearing on NewsmaxTV's Steve Malzberg Show, Dershowitz said, "I don’t understand the way some people on the Left glorify American terrorists" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: Robert Redford before this bombing was on Good Morning America, and he made a movie about the Weather Underground, and he was specifically asked by George Stephanopoulos, “You were followers of them. You kind of rooted for them?” He said, “I don’t know if I wanted a revolution, but I did admire them.” And Stephanopoulos said, “What about the violence?” And he said, “Sometimes you have to have violence.” And you got William Ayers who’s glorified. So, I mean, there’s a big hypocrisy in this country too.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Oh, it’s more than hypocrisy. Look at Kathy Boudin is now teaching at Columbia. And Angela Davis has had a distinguished career teaching. Ayers and his wife. These are all people who were terrorists.
MALZBERG: Would you agree no difference between them and this kid [Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]?
DERSHOWITZ: They’re much worse because they’re much better educated and had all the privileges in the world. So I see them as much, much worse. And I don’t understand the way some people on the Left glorify American terrorists without realizing that, you know, it’s indistinguishable morally from the kinds of terrorism we’re condemning here. And I just don’t buy it.For the record, Redford appeared on Good Morning America April 2 wherein host George Stephanopoulos so gushed over the actor's new film, "The Company You Keep," about a former Weather Underground activist that Redford said, "You ought to get on the marketing team!"
For conservative opinion about the film from Michelle Malkin and Christian Toto, please go here and here respectively
Can a President Who Has Promised to 'Stand with the Muslims' Protect Americans?
In Obama's Audacity of Hope, he stated, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in any ugly direction." He also asserted in Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars, "We can absorb [another] terrorist attack." These are two straightforward statements that raise the question of whether a man who has been seemingly obsessed with reaching out to "the Muslim world" since taking office is capable of fulfilling his duty as commander-in-chief to keep America safe and secure.The negative implications of Obama's time in office will be felt for decades, but one thing is clear. The U.S. President who does not recognize America's exceptionalism and who has promised to stand with Muslims has been unable to keep Americans safe from Islamic terror -- both at home and abroad. Asserting that "The Obama Years are Synonymous with Terrorism," a recent IBD editorial chronicled the terrorist attacks, both failed and successful, during Obama's term. From Little Rock and Ft. Hood to Benghazi and Boston, terrorism directed at Americans is far from waning despite Obama's never-ending claims of al-Qaeda's decimation. And unless Obama's policies of appeasement, political correctness, government dependency, leading from behind, and willful ignorance regarding the Islamic threat to the West will lead to further terrorism.
Obama did not create the Islamist ideology that has fed the fervor of modern-day terrorism. But from his Cairo speech through his speech Monday night just after the Boston bombings, in which he refused to call the attacks terrorism (he conceded the point the following day), he has made it clear that he does not believe that terrorism is a continuing threat to the lives and safety of Americans. His refusal to use the terms "War on Terror" and "Islamic fundamentalism" are just examples of a belief either that he can wish away evil or that evil simply does not exist. But what the country needs is a president who understands Islamic jihad for what it is -- the totalitarian, fundamentalist dogma that drives the violence perpetrated by those who have waged holy war on the West. And Obama has yet to give us any indication that he understands these very real threats, or that he is interested in, and capable of, protecting us from them.
Based on the fact that, in response to information provided by a foreign government (presumably Russia), the FBI questioned one of the Boston terrorists two years ago and a 2009 domestic violence arrest that should have led to his deportation but did not, Tuesday morning quarterbacks are focusing on Obama's questionable immigration policies, including administrative amnesty that "apparently directs ICE to wait until an illegal alien commits a serious crime or two before considering deportation."i And while most people think of Hispanics crossing our southern border illegally, few realize that Hezb'allah has operatives working throughout Latin America. Unfortunately, securing our borders for national security purposes is taking a back-seat to Obama's politicking and demonization of the GOP as anti-immigrant.
Alas, would that it were simply Obama's indifference to our immigration problem that led to the successful terrorist attack last week. Unfortunately, Obama seems driven by a desire to befriend Muslims and demonize those who recognize that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are Muslimsii and that radical Islam is a clear, present, and dangerous threat. Martha Raddatz observed, "The president has been so worried about offending non-jihadist Muslims that he's tried to take the ideology out of our enemy, which is nuts considering our enemy is the violent ideology."
The administration's assertions that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate epitomize the administration's cluelessness. Notwithstanding the MB doctrine -- "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." -- the administration's assertions of secularism and moderation rather than Islamism and sharia domination are indicative of willful ignorance on the part of those formulating foreign policy. As Barry Rubin stated:
[T]he ability to critique precisely what is radical in Islam and what is wrong with Islamism is handicapped by the successful effort to brand any attempts at making such distinctions as "Islamophobia" instead of a sensible fear of revolutionary Islamism[.]
But is it really ignorance, or is there a dangerous ideology that drives Obama policy in this regard? In an in-depth essay on the MB's penetration of the government," Clare Lopez observed:
Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements -- from al-Qa'eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa'eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria -- that it is scarcely recognizable as American any more.
This mentality likely led to Obama's Justice Department dropping the charges against unindicted co-conspirators CAIR, ISNA, and other Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations in the Holy Land Foundation terror-funding trial. It also helped bring the MB to power in Egypt as Obama threw Mubarak under the proverbial bus despite a decades-long history of a peaceful alliance among Egypt, America, and Israel. And with numerous MB operatives working with or in the administration, it is no wonder that an Egyptian cleric recently stated, "Trust me, very soon we will see the flag of 'There is no god but Allah' flying over the White House. They are already holding [Muslim] prayers in the White House."
This worldview coupled with the need to ensure some elitists' perceived politically correct discourse is leading to troubling policy decisions. Succumbing to pressure by MB-affiliated organizations, the FBI was forced to rewrite counter-terrorism training manuals instructing agents on the religion of Islam. Allen West responded to the fiasco, stating, "We have to understand when tolerance becomes a one-way street, it will lead to cultural suicide[.] ... [W]e should not allow the Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups to be influencing our national security strategy."
One has to wonder whether this played a role in the FBI's failure to discover the Boston terrorists and stop them before they killed. Rep. Pete King stated on Fox News Sunday:
[T]his is the latest in a series of cases like this. Anwar Awlaki, Major Hasan, Carlos Bledsoe, Robert Headley [sic], and now, this case with the older brother, where the FBI is given information about someone as being potential terrorists, they look at them, and then they don't take action. And they go out and carry out murders after this. So, again, I'm wondering, again, is there something deficient here? What was wrong?
Whether due to efforts to be politically correct or efforts to hide reality from the public, Obama's refusal to call terrorism what it is is distressing -- and dangerous. Major Hasan's terrorist attack at Ft. Hood is labeled "workplace violence" despite clear evidence (including screams of "Allahu Akbar") to the contrary. And a filmmaker accused by the administration of producing a video that led to the Benghazi attacks remains in jail while our new secretary of state echoes Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton and pronounces, "We got a lot more important things to move on to[.]" This willful ignorance will lead Kerry, along with Obama's other similarly incompetent appointees, to serve as indirect and unintentional co-conspirators in future terrorist attacks on Americans.
The administration's refusal to discuss what motivated last week's terrorist attack (recall that David Axelrod surmised that Obama was thinking that it was due to "Tax Day") is leading to left-wing apologists and our enemies blaming America. Until Obama admits that Islamism is a failed ideology and proudly asserts the wisdom of Americanism, how can we expect to end the growing appeal of violence among the Islamic faithful?
In a speech after the Boston attack, Obama referred to himself as "Reverend Obama." If only he would take on that role in the context of preaching to the Muslim world what a privilege it is to live in our great country. But it is this refusal to recognize the evils of Islamic fundamentalism that have neutered the administration's ability to confront the problem. And while the administration declares that the War on Terror is over and Janet Napolitano declares that the Boston attacks were not part of a "broader plot," the terrorists' War on America and its values rages on (a recent story explains that the only reason the terrorists did not kill the carjacking victim was because he was not an American). Andrew McCarthy explained:
Islamic supremacism is a mainstream Islamic ideology - held by tens of millions of Muslims, not just a few thousand al Qaeda members and collaborators. Thus, if the administration were to admit that this ideology and agenda catalyze terrorism, they would logically have to admit the problem is much bigger than al Qaeda.
... This leads the administration to the absurd conclusions that...a mass-murder attack committed by Muslims, no matter how obviously it is terrorism, should not be acknowledged as terrorism unless it has been committed by either a member of al Qaeda or a group that can be portrayed as "inspired" by al Qaeda (meaning, inspired by "violent extremism," not by Islam).
And Stephen Hayes observed:
This is not, of course, the first time we've seen an apparent eagerness from the Obama administration to minimize or dismiss the possibility of broader ties to international terrorism after attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. interests. Three days after the attempted bombing of an airplane on Christmas Day 2009, President Obama suggested that the attempted attack was the work of "an isolated extremist." He made the claim despite the fact that the bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told interrogators in interviews shortly after his capture that he'd worked with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Five months later, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called the attempted bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad a "one off" attack. Other administration officials downplayed the likelihood of ties to foreign jihadists.
In the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about the influences that led to the radicalization of the Boston terrorists. What we do know is that the imam from the mosque that the terrorists attended is affiliated with a MB front-group and that he sermonized about violence. And while the NYPD was vilified for recognizing that there is an incitement problem in America's mosques, the federal government should mirror those anti-terror surveillance programs but likely will not.iii
Exacerbating the problem is Obama's domestic spending sickness that is leaving our military capability in shambles and our homeland security seriously wanting. In an article discussing the military's "State of Unreadiness" in the context of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Col J.E. Dyer observed:
Even during the penurious Carter years, things weren't this bad. It really isn't possible to overstate the seriousness of it...
Burned readiness for the Air Force and Navy -- the services that would execute a strike on the Iranian nuclear program -- means forces that can't be called on when they are needed. Think of "burning readiness" as driving until your gas is gone without a means of refilling the tank. That's what America is doing right now with our armed forces.
While many may argue that the cuts to the military budget are due to partisan congressional dysfunction, it is important to note that the sequester was the brilliant idea of our current commander-in-chief. Furthermore, it was recently reported that the administration cut the budget for domestic bomb prevention by 45%. This is the portion of the DHS budget that is allocated to prevent the exact type of terrorist attack that occurred in Boston last week. And over the past several years, programs that provided millions to schools for training, security, police, and mass tragedies were terminated.
Obama entered office promising to close Gitmo, treating the war on terror as an everyday criminal matter (despite the urging of lawmakers, the administration will not designate the Boston terrorist as an enemy combatantiv), and outlawing enhanced interrogation that leads to life-saving intelligence. While Obama is largely praised for drone attacks that have killed al-Qaeda terrorists, the inevitable result is a dearth of leads that could prevent future attacks. The premature pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan and resulting void in American influence and strength are resulting in newly emboldened Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Islamic jihadists across the entire region. Leading from behind has resulted in the weaponization of Islamists. And the administration has granted Global Entry Status to Saudi Arabian citizens (before those from Great Britain, France, and Israel) and now permits knives, baseball bats, and other potential weapons on airplanes.
Many analysts are now questioning whether the atrocity that befell the citizens of Boston will become the "new normal." It is clear that future attacks are inevitable as long as our government and the president in particular do not call a spade a spade and begin to take all necessary measures to protect American citizens from the evil deeds of Islamists.
Now is not a time to "stand with Muslims." It is a time to call for Muslims to leave behind centuries of violence and join the civilized race of the 21st century. And if they do not, they should know that we will fight the War on Terror until the evil is destroyed.
iMore recently, a group of ICE agents sued the administration, claiming that it is dictating how immigration laws are or are not enforced. Quoting Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, Andrew Stiles reported that the administration appears "to be giving a lot of fee passes to people who are a public-safety problem, beyond the fact that they are here illegally."
iiAccording to The Religion of Peace website, there have been over 20,000 lethal Muslim terrorist attacks since, 9/11 with approximately 1,800 occurring annually, about 150 per month, and 5 each day.
iii A Wall Street Journal editorial reports that due, in part, to bureaucratic competition, FBI officials were major sources for the AP stories on the NYPD program. They also "wish the NYPD had been in charge" in the case of the Boston attack.
iv The importance in naming Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and others as enemy combatants cannot be stressed enough. This designation would permit extensive interrogation that could possibly lead to information that could prevent future attacks and vital intelligence on terror cells, weapons training, and related matters. Treating terrorists as common criminals shuts the door to obtaining critical intelligence much like a drone strike terminates any ability to learn from the subject.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/can_a_president_who_has_promised_to_stand_with_the_muslims_protect_americans.html#ixzz2RIzb33rk
No comments:
Post a Comment