1) We Are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East
If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East. Jordan is facing similar unrest, as are Algeria and Yemen. Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January. It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated. A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel. Once their power is solidified, perhaps in a year or two, they will combine forces to attack Israel. If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.
So whom does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?
Obama wasted no time in telling us. He supports Mubarak's opponents, and he probably has been all along. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed. And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different story.
And if that weren't bad enough, Obama's latest comment to Egypt's leader is that "an orderly transition ... must begin now."
Must begin. Now.
Simply stunning.
Juxtapose Obama's statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran. Tunisia: "Reform or be overthrown." Egypt: "an orderly transition ... must begin now." Iran: "It is not productive ... to be seen as meddling." Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed that the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb'allah have "legitimate claims," and we all remember his mindless counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, reaching out to "moderate" Hezb'allah members last spring. Hezb'allah moderates?
The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies but rarely, if ever, with our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far-left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this president's un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play (emphasis mine).
1a) Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Prepare Egyptians for war with Israel'
A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.
Ah, yes, the Religion of Peace and the Brotherhood of Peace speaks out.
Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”
Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.”
1b) Just What Is The Muslim Brotherhood?
While analysts ask who or what is behind the sustained protests in Egypt, one group is now seeking political legitimacy.
Technically banned under Egypt's constitution that forbids religious based parties, the Muslim Brotherhood is now throwing its support behind Mohammed el Baradei as an opposition leader.
But many fear that if Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak goes, the real replacement will be either the Muslim Brotherhood itself, or an Islamic fundamentalist group. El Baradei insisted on Sunday talk shows that the fear was unwarranted.
“This is total bogus that the Muslim Brotherhood are religiously conservative,” El Baradei told ABC’s “This Week.” “They are no way extremists. They are no way using violence.”
But critics point out that the Brotherhood, which was established in Egypt in the 1920's, is synonymous with political Islam which supports the use of Islamic law known as Sharia.
“Right now the Arab Republic of Egypt does not impose Islamic law in its fullness,” Rob Spencer, the head of Jihad Watch told FOX News. “The Muslim Brotherhood wants to change that.”
1c) US noncommittal on Muslim group joining talks
MUNICH – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday the Obama administration supports the transition to a new government now moving forward in Egypt, but she says it must be up to the Egyptian people to decide if the reforms go far enough.
…But she withheld judgment on the decision by the Muslim Brotherhood to enter into discussions with the embattled government. The fundamentalist group said it would insist that President Hosni Mubarak, an authoritarian leader who's been in power for nearly three decades, step aside immediately.
…While remaining non-committal about the Brotherhood's entry into the talks, she said "at least they are now involved in the dialogue."
"We are going to wait and see how this develops," she said.
Clinton's comment suggests the administration would be willing to work with a government that includes the Brotherhood, but only if certain conditions were met.
Right. “Certain conditions.” Are those the certain conditions that allowed Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?
1d) The Problem of the Friendly Tyrant
We’ve had many alliances with friendly tyrants, from Stalin to Papa Doc, from Mubarak to Pinochet, from the shah to the Saudi royal family. It’s not an easy embrace. If you’re the American president you know, or should know, that it’s only a matter of time before the American people — or at least a big chunk of “public opinion” — turn against the tyrant and demand that we support his domestic enemies, real and imagined. You don’t want that, since you know that in the ensuing political free-for-all you will be stained with the same spray of slime that besmirches the tyrants.
On the other hand, if you pull the plug on the tyrant, you send two very dangerous messages. You tell all our allies that we’re weak and unreliable — which discourages them, along with all the would-be friends and allies who are trying to figure out what to do. And you tell all our enemies that we are weak and will run at the first sign of trouble. For extras, if the abandoned tyrant should win, he won’t be a great friend of ours again.
That’s a bad parlay.
Many people are now saying that it is always wrong for America to support dictators. “Always” is too much. Was it wrong to join the Soviets in the war against the Axis? Would it have been better to sacrifice thousands of American lives in order to avoid the moral stain on our standard? Are tactics to be trashed in favor of a single strategy? As I keep saying, we are often compelled to choose between various evils, and it is a legitimate choice. It’s the way the world generally works, in fact; it’s rare to have a fully attractive and morally impeccable option.
Plus, while tyrants are contrary to our national DNA, there are dictators and dictators. Some can be convinced to democratize, and those chances are increased if they trust us and are willing to work with us. One way to get from dictatorship to democracy — and that is our national mission — is to get friendly tyrants to liberalize their polities. Peaceful transitions have been accomplished, and, by the way, in societies that were widely believed to be intrinsically, almost genetically, authoritarian. To take two: Taiwan and Spain, both of which democratized from the top down.
Tyrants don’t like this process at all, obviously. It drains their power, and may even cost them their job. And they worry about darker consequences, like standing trial for various criminal acts, from repression to corruption. That’s why Franco laid the groundwork for democracy, but left the actual process to his successors. But the Taiwanese actually did it; the ruling party created a system that was guaranteed to remove the party from power, perhaps only temporarily but perhaps for a long time. It could not have happened without American help and perhaps (I don’t know this, I only suspect it) promises of safe haven if things got very bad.
We should have insisted that the shah liberalize Iran. Yes, I know he did some of it, and I know that Iran was — by orders of magnitude — the most liberal [1] and open society in the Muslim Middle East. But he stopped that process in its tracks, thereby provoking the insurrection that produced the Islamic Revolution.
We should have insisted that Mubarak liberalize Egypt, and every now and then an American president or secretary of state said so [2], but then we backed off. Now we have a serious crisis with no “good” solution. What to do?
1e) From Dave Steiger: “I taught this just a month ago (see his teaching notes at http://gracebeliever.com/biblestudy/101230%20Rise%20of%20Islam.pdf, comment inserted). There are no such things as ‘moderate Muslims.’ They're just hiding it, waiting for the right time. Trust me, Google had no freakin' idea this guy was committed to the cause...”
Google Exec Who Went Missing In Egypt Now A Spokesman For Opposition Group (GOOG)
A Google executive who has gone missing in Egypt has been "symbolically" named the spokesman for an opposition group, in an attempt to free him from being held by Egyptian authorities, CBS News reports.
Wael Ghonim, Google's head of marketing for the middle east, flew into Egypt last week to participate in the demonstrations against the government. At some point he went missing, and one of his last tweets ominously read, "we are all ready to die."
1f) Beck Responds to ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Accusations With Three Sentences
On radio Thursday, Glenn Beck responded to those accusing him of wild “conspiracy theories” connecting the extreme left and extreme Islam in the wake of the Egyptian unrest — and he used three simple, succinct sentences to do so.
“I want the left to know, I plant my flag in this soil. If I’m wrong, so be it,” he said before laying out his case. “And you can discredit me all you want for the end of time, but I’m telling you I’m not wrong on this one. And there are three points that I want to make sure are very clear.”
Sentence one: “Groups from the hardcore socialist left, and extreme Islam will work together because of the common enemy of Israel.”
Sentence two: “Groups from the hardcore socialist left and extreme Islam will work together because of the common enemy of capitalism.”
Sentence three: “Groups from the hardcore socialist left, and extreme Islam will work together to overturn relative stability, because in the status quo, they are both ostracized from power and the mainstream in most of the world.”
See: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-responds-to-conspiracy-theory-accusations-with-three-sentences/
1g) More journalists attacked in Egypt
Yesterday, Glenn reacted to stories of journalists like Anderson Cooper who had been attacked while trying to cover the chaos erupting in the Middle East. Over the past twenty-four hours, more journalists are reporting horror stories of being attacked, kidnapped, mobbed, and more. Glenn has even spoken to a few people overseas, and he gave his reaction on radio this morning.
…Apparently, President Obama’s whirlwind tour not that long ago didn’t do as much to improve the image of Americans overseas, as foreign journalists appear to be getting blamed for the violence.
“Greg Palkot [of Fox News] and his cameraman were beat within an inch of their life,” Glenn said.
Pat went into further detail, explaining “Yeah, they were in a hotel that they were throwing Molotov cocktails at. A big fire started and so they had to run from the building and they ran right out into a group who started, proceeded to beat them. Then they’re beaten so severely, they’re taken to the hospital and the military detains him as an Israeli spy, had him blindfolded, accusing him of spying. That was a dangerous situation.”
“On Fox they are showing the unrest now in Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Syria, Yemen and Egypt. But on MSNBC they are showing the peaceful crowds,” Glenn said, joking that MSNBC has been fast to let us know that everything is fine.
2) Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void
Today’s decision by Judge Vinson is another stinging defeat for the administration in its defense of Obamacare. Defenders of the health care bill had tried to paint any legal challenge as “frivolous.” When then-Speaker Pelosi was asked by a reporter “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate,” Pelosi responded incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” To wit, Judge Vinson offered a serious response, striking down not only the mandate, but the whole of the health care bill.
2a) Morning Bell: The Obamacare Assault on the Rule of Law
Mere hours after senior federal Judge Roger Vinson, a United States Naval Academy graduate, became the second federal judge to find Obamacare’s Section 1501 (the individual mandate) unconstitutional, an anonymous White House official called in to question Judge Vinson’s entire ruling, telling reporters, “There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis.” The only thing “odd and unconventional” here is that a White House official felt it imperative to undermine the legitimacy of a coequal branch of government. Unfortunately this incident just fits into a larger pattern of behavior that calls into question just how far this Administration will bend the rule of law to protect President Barack Obama’s signature accomplishment: Obamacare.
According to Heritage legal expert Robert Alt, Judge Vinson’s declaratory judgment binds the parties to the suit, which includes 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and the federal government. This means that, absent a court-issued stay, Obamacare cannot be further implemented as it pertains to these 26 states. So the White House now faces a simple choice: Will President Obama abide by a valid decision by a federal district court, or will he unilaterally ignore the rule of law? If the past is any indicator, the rule of law is in for a continued beating (emphasis mine).
As former Member of Congress and Heritage Distinguished Fellow Ernest Istook documents, the Obamacare legislation contained unprecedented billions of dollars in advance implementation appropriations. The advance year appropriations were designed to completely bypass Congress’s annual budget process and go far beyond standard spending decisions for the current and following fiscal years. Some of these advance-implementation appropriations stretch 10 years into the future, far beyond President Obama’s term in office.
Then there are the hundreds of waivers reaching millions of Americans that are being granted piecemeal by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Just last week, HHS granted 500 new waivers, more than tripling the number of groups exempt from Obamacare. Unions that gave heavily to President Obama’s election efforts accounted for 40 percent of all employees exempted from Obamacare last week. In all, more than 700 entities are now exempt from Obamacare, totaling 2.1 million people. Last night before the Senate voted on party lines against repeal of Obamacare, Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) explained why this selective enforcement of the law must stop: “Most Americans don’t play these political games. They don’t have lobbyists and PACs, but I think they should all get a waiver too. I think we should name this repeal bill that we will vote on today ‘the great American waiver (emphases mine).’”
Health care is by far not the only arena where the Obama Administration has sacrificed the rule of law for its own political expediency. It has shredded the Constitution’s Appointments Clause to install its favored bureaucrats at regulatory agencies. Then there was the “outrageous and illegal” takeover of Chrysler, the shakedown of BP, the assertion that President Obama can rewrite our nation’s immigration laws simply by not enforcing them, the refusal to enforce anti-voting-fraud laws, and, back to Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threats to silence insurance companies.
2b) Sen. Hatch: Kagan should sit out health care case
WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, an opponent of the recently enacted health care overhaul, says Justice Elena Kagan should not take part in the widely expected Supreme Court consideration of the new law.
…His comments came the same week that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said he plans to file a motion to take the case directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing an appeals court, after he won a federal judge's ruling in December against the law's requirement that most Americans buy health insurance.
On Monday, a second federal judge declared the law unconstitutional. Two other judges have upheld it.
Hatch said he is sure that Kagan participated in discussions about the law and challenges to it while she served in the Justice Department as Obama's top Supreme Court lawyer. Hatch told Fox News that he believes Kagan "should recuse herself," although he noted the justice alone will make that determination.
2c) Nearly half of HHS Obamacare waivers have been granted to union employees
…According to the information released out of the total waivers granted unions were granted 153 waivers or roughly 21% of all waivers. They also made up the largest body of employees exempted or a total of 852,740. It works out to roughly 40% of all employees exempted by the law. Many of the waivers were granted to some of the largest unions in the nation including the UFCW, SEIU, and Teamsters. RWN reports 28 UFCW locations were waived.
A large body of state and local government agencies has also been granted waivers. A total of 76 agencies have been granted exemption and close to a third of those are school districts, mostly from NY.
These waivers represent supposedly “temporary stays” on the Health Care law, but once again points to the growing devastation that the law creates. Today, there are 2.5 million people waived from a law that will one day end their health care plans. According to the WSJ, without these exemptions, employees would not be able to afford health insurance (emphasis mine).
3) Judge Holds Obama Administration in Contempt Over Offshore Drilling Ban
A New Orleans judge has ruled that the Obama administration acted in contempt by continuing to block new offshore drilling after a judge struck down the drilling moratorium. After the first ban was struck down, the administration instituted a second ban, then lifted it just before it too was about to be struck down. Even now there still appears be a de facto ban because the government has yet to approve any new offshore drilling. From Bloomberg.com,
Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.
“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.
The Interior department has also been ordered to pay the legal fees of the group that originally filed the lawsuit against the drilling ban.
This is not the only time the Obama administration has ignored a federal judge’s ruling. During the last few days, the administration has been ignoring the Jan. 31 ruling of U.S. District Court judge Roger Vinson. Judge Vinson struck down the entire bill as unconstitutional, but the Obama administration is still implementing the bill. They may receive another charge of contempt by ignoring Judge Vinson’s ruling (emphasis mine).
There appears to be a pattern developing. When a court rules against Obama, he continues doing the same activity that the court ruled against. For someone who is supposed to be a Constitutional Law professor, Obama doesn’t seem to realize how the separation of powers works in our form of government. Or maybe he understands completely and is refusing to obey the rule of law. If this is the case we have a very big problem (emphasis mine).
4) Undercover Video Shows Planned Parenthood Assisting with Underage Sex Trafficking
Last week, an FBI probe was requested by Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion provider in the United States. The target is a man who visited at least 12 of its health centers, and “sought to speak confidentially with a clinic employee and then requested information regarding health services for sex workers, including some who he said were minors and in the U.S. illegally,” according to a January 25 report from CBS News.
After conducting its own investigation, Planned Parenthood determined the man was connected to Live Action, a pro-life group founded and run by young people of college age, which specializes in filming undercover video inside abortion clinics.
Today Live Action released the undercover video it filmed during a sting operation conducted by this “pimp” at Planned Parenthood of New Jersey, and it is devastating. The video can be viewed at the link below:
In the video, which begins by reminding viewers that sex trafficking for minors – or aiding, abetting, or counseling such activity – is a federal crime that carries a sentence of 10 years to life, the Live Action operative gets a cheery reception from Planned Parenthood’s clinic manager. She agrees to provide secret abortions and birth control for his underage prostitutes, and offers him not only assistance for avoiding legal entanglements, but even gives him business advice.
4a) Undercover 'Sex Work' Videos Fuel Congressional Campaign Against Planned Parenthood
…But Live Action is calling for an investigation in both cases. It's not clear how many videos the group will release, but it claims it has enough footage to demonstrate a "pattern" of illicit activity.
"We wanted to demonstrate how severe this problem was," Live Action President Lila Rose told FoxNews.com. "People are really starting to pay attention. ... This is institutional."
…The video released Tuesday quickly gave momentum to Rep. Mike Pence's, R-Ind., effort to strip federal funding for abortion providers. With Planned Parenthood the biggest recipient of those funds, Pence said Americans should be "shocked" that the organization "has been recorded aiding and abetting underage sex trafficking."
"The recent release of an undercover video exposing duplicity and potential criminality by an employee of Planned Parenthood is an outrage," Pence said. "The time to deny any and all funding to Planned Parenthood is now."
He urged Congress to immediately bring his bill, which would end family planning grants for abortion providers, to the floor for consideration. Pence reintroduced that bill last month. According to a Government Accountability Office study last summer, Planned Parenthood tapped into $657 million in federal dollars between 2002 and 2009.
…Schear went on to say that while sex trafficking must be stopped, "dirty tricks" must be "condemned."
"Falsely claiming sex trafficking to health professionals to advance a political agenda is an astoundingly cynical form of political activity," Schear said.
If Planned Parenthood were as pure as the wind-driven snow, then these “dirty tricks” wouldn’t have worked, now would they?
Planned Parenthood released another statement Tuesday reiterating that its workers had "immediately" notified their superiors after being visited by people claiming to be involved in sex trafficking. The group said Live Action's goal is to "take down" Planned Parenthood.
Rose dismissed Planned Parenthood's explanation.
"They clearly didn't think it was a hoax if they fired their manager," she said. "They're talking out of both sides of their mouths."
4b) Why Are You Connected to Human Traffickers?
…This was all brought home again this week in the release of five new undercover videos, each of which demonstrated that our tax dollars are being used to break the law by aiding and abetting traffickers. Worse yet the organization that you are funding receives upwards of $363 million dollars a year from you, and allows the full range of the services they provide to assist sex traffickers.
LiveAction.org and it's president Lila Rose spent most of last week making the progressive left in America so angry, that several of them threatened violence against the organization that is attempting to protect innocent human life. How very tolerant of the one who scream "tolerance" at every turn. (Except now in the lives of underage children.)
Live Action has through very meticulous undercover investigation exposed the actions of those that run these facilities. What the video tapes demonstrate is that multiple clinics operated by Planned Parenthood plainly engage in the cover up of direct knowledge of sex trafficking. And thus far on five different tapes, five specific instances of law breaking occurred by not immediately reporting the trafficking they became aware of.
No Ms. Green, no Planned Parenthood, no American progressives, and no self-hating blacks who refuse to speak truth, no... it does not justify the taking of innocent children, chaining them to a wall, and making them perform sexually until pregnant--and then securing a partially state-subsidized abortion (as Mitt Romney's health care plan allows in Massachusetts, and as President Obama's health care plan allows through backdoor options.) – emphasis mine.
The slush fund that has become the tax-payer vacuum shoot to Planned Parenthood must end.
Not that Planned Parenthood ever qualified as "health care assistance" to begin with.
The truth is they are an activist group, advocating and encouraging robust sexual activity in teens, sometimes as young as junior high, and supplying abortions for anyone, under (obviously) any circumstances.
5) Senator Kyl Right to Question Russia’s Latest New START Claims
It’s been only a month since the Senate gave its nod to ratifying New START, a strategic arms control treaty with Russia that the Administration hopes to bring into force next week. But already Moscow is discounting the clarifications the Senators stipulated and added to their resolution of ratification.
Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ) wisely raised concerns about this in his latest floor statement. He pointed out that Russia’s ratification law cites “understandings” that the Russian and U.S. officials came to during negotiations that justify Russia’s claim that the treaty limits U.S. missile defenses and applies to any new type of strategic offensive arms.
…So, as Senator Kyl asked, what “understandings” is Russia talking about? Unfortunately, the Administration rejected Senators’ request to share its negotiating record. That would have cleared this up before the treaty was voted on. Now, after the Senate has given its advice and consent, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no meeting of minds on the implications of the treaty. Worse, as Senator Kyl points out, “What was to serve as a vehicle for ‘reset’ may, in fact, serve to promote increasing discord.”
See: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/01/senator-kyl-right-to-question-russias-latest-new-start-claims/
6) It’s Official: TSA Granted ‘Fundamental Human Right’ to Unionize
WASHINGTON (AP) — The government will grant collective bargaining rights to the nation’s 40,000 airport screeners, the head of the largest federal workers union said Friday.
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, told The Associated Press he was informed of the decision at a meeting with John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration.
TSA workers have tried for nearly a decade to win the same union protections as other federal employees, but Republican opponents have balked over worries that union demands could jeopardize national security or slow response times in a crisis.
Union officials call those arguments an insult to the hundreds of thousands of public safety officers that already have collective bargaining rights, including Border Patrol agents, firefighters and the Capitol police.
“Today marks the recognition of a fundamental human right for 40,000 patriotic federal employees who have been disenfranchised since the inception of the agency,” Gage said.
7) Sen. Schumer‘s ’Three Branches’ of Government No Longer Includes Judiciary (from The Blaze and Newsbusters)
While sitting in on CNN’s “State of the Union” this morning, New York’s Senator Chuck Schumer was ringing alarm bells on what he perceives as a GOP threat to shut down the government this Spring during the upcoming Debt Ceiling debate and the Congressional battle over various elements of government funding. This tactic was nothing new as both sides traditionally use extreme examples to make their point. What surprised me was Sen. Schumer’s explanation of the three branches of our American system of government.
As I have always understood it, and as outlined in the Constitution, we have a brilliantly balanced government that provides checks and balances between the three branches; Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
…In the new Schumer model, the Judicial Branch has apparently been removed. Also disturbing was that CNN host Candy Crowley did not raise an eyebrow at this significant error. One wonders just how much time Chris Matthews will dedicate on Monday‘s Hardball program to denigrating the Senator’s lack of understanding of the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers meant when they created the Three Branches of U.S. Government.
Senator Chuck Schumber (DEMOCRAT, NY)…”So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strongly they feel -- you know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a president. And all three of us are going to have to come together and give some, but it is playing with fire to risk the shutting down of the government, just as it is playing with fire to risk not paying the debt ceiling.”
Imagine for a moment Palin or Bachmann saying something this stupid. So-called journalists - especially those on MSNBC! - would have a field day with it.
Matthews would call the speaker a balloon head, spending the next several days playing the comment over and over while claiming it shows a deplorable lack of knowledge about our political system thereby disqualifying said person from public office.
By contrast, and this is only a guess on my part, I highly doubt the "Hardball" host or any of the other shills on MSNBC will at all question the intellectual capacity of the Senior Senator from New York if this flub is even mentioned.
8) Obama issues global warming rules in January, exempts GE-powered plant in February
Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.
This week, the EPA issued its first exemption, Environment & Energy News reports:
The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.
According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to "grandfather" projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
There's something interesting about the Avenal Power Center:
The proposed Avenal Energy project will be a combined-cycle generating plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine.
Maybe GE CEO Jeff Immelt's closeness to President Obama, and his broad support for Obama's agenda, had nothing to do with this exemption. But we have no way of knowing that, and given the administration's record of regularly misleading Americans regarding lobbyists, frankly, I wouldn't trust the White House if they told me there was no connection.
On the upside, at least Job Czar Immelt is creating jobs!
9) At many big banks, no more free checking
Saying new banking rules will cost them billions of dollars a year, the big banks plan to bring back maintenance fees on basic checking accounts. The poorest will be hit the hardest.
Free checking, RIP. It was nice while it lasted.
Reversing a trend that began in the mid-1990s, big banks are imposing new fees on their least-profitable customers — those who want just a bare-bones checking account.
Those who can't maintain fat balances, or who don't use other services that would make them more lucrative to a bank, probably will need to cough up about $100 a year if they want to stay put.
Blame the financial crisis. As part of the reforms adopted after the banking system's near-meltdown in 2008, the federal government has made it more difficult for banks to impose credit-card late fees, debit-card overdraft penalties and other charges.
Saying the new rules will cost them billions of dollars a year, the big banks plan to bring back maintenance fees on basic checking accounts.
The country's four giant banks — Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Citibank — are already phasing in the charges, and large regional banks are expected to follow suit.
10) Ariz. AG criticizes Bloomberg's gun-show sting
PHOENIX – New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg overstepped his power in authorizing investigators to run an undercover sting operation at a Phoenix gun show, Arizona's attorney general said Tuesday.
Bloomberg's office didn't bother to give Arizona police any advanced notice of the plan, Attorney General Tom Horne said.
"The fact that no such notification was made indicates this so-called sting is nothing less than a public relations stunt," Horne said.
During the sting disclosed Monday by Bloomberg, investigators hired by New York City bought semiautomatic pistols after they said they probably couldn't pass a background check.
Bloomberg has authorized similar stings around the country as part of a push for tougher federal laws to help keep guns off the streets of New York.
Horne said Bloomberg ought to consider the skyrocketing crime in his city before sending police officers to another state (emphasis mine). He cited the latest FBI crime statistics that show robberies, rapes, aggravated assaults and murders increased in New York City in 2010, compared to the previous year.
11) New Bill to Require Parents to Register Their Children with the State
A deeply troubling bill (SB 136) has been proposed in the Illinois General Assembly by State Senator Edward D. Maloney (D-Chicago) that will affect all children in non-public schools, including home schools.
Existing school code permits the voluntary registration of non-public school students with the state. If SB 136 were to pass, it would compel all parents or legal guardians of home or privately schooled students to register with the state. Registration that is now voluntary would become compulsory. The arguments used to justify such compulsory registration are specious and reveal underlying flawed assumptions.
TAKE ACTION: Call Sen. Maloney's office at 773-881-4180 and ask him to drop this unwarranted expansion of government into the private lives and affairs of good Illinois citizens. Click HERE to send him a fax or an email.
Sen. Maloney has expressed concern that those who homeschool their children are not accountable to anyone -- and by anyone, he clearly means any government employee. Does Sen. Maloney actually believe that the state has proved itself better at educating children than parents who homeschool?
…Proponents fail to acknowledge that bias and censorship pervade public school curricula. The problems in public schools involve not merely what troubling ideas are being promoted to students but what ideas students are never exposed to because of systemic bias and censorship.
Proponents of this bill fail to address the likely, if not inevitable, slippery slope from registration to regulation. While SB 136 requires parents only to register their children with the state, it's naïve to think that our bloated and still ravenous state bureaucracy will not expand its purview to dictate curriculum, administer tests, monitor or evaluate student progress, require certification of those who serve as teachers, and/or mandate home visits by state officials -- all in the service of protecting children, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment