Gaza

Hamas Says Gaza Not “Occupied”; U.N. Disagrees World Body Out of Step with Palestinians GENEVA, Jan. 3 - The UN’s continued labeling of the Gaza Strip as “occupied” was directly contradicted today by a top leader of Hamas, the vehemently anti-Israel Palestinian terror group that controls the territory. Noting the Hamas statement reflects the reality since Israel's full withdrawal in 2005, the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch called on the UN to encourage Palestinians to take responsibility for areas they control, and to cease referring to Gaza, in reports and through officials and spokespeople, as “occupied territory.” “The UN's traditional practice of absolving Palestinians of responsibility hasn't helped them one iota," said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. "On the contrary, Palestinian citizens are the main losers when those that directly govern and police them are never seriously held accountable for their actions." "Now that the Palestinians running Gaza publicly regognize that it's not occupied -- which has been the reality since Israel's disengagement removed every solider, civilian and setttlement in 2005 -- the UN's refusal to do the same will only hinder Palestinians from developing a healthy culture of self-rule," said Neuer. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar confirmed there was no Israeli occupation of the territory in comments reported today by the Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency. Zahhar was casting doubt on whether Hamas would organize anti-Israel marches in Gaza in conjunction with similar protests that the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority would organize in the West Bank. "Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,” Zahhar said, according to Ma'an. The Hamas statement follows growing recognition among international lawyers that the UN's resistance to holding Palestinians responsible for territory they control is outdated. In a recent article in the American University International Law Review, legal scholar Elizabeth Samson explains that under the Geneva Conventions and international judicial precedents, Gaza can no longer be considered occupied as Israel no longer exercises “effective control.” The Israeli Supreme Court also ruled on January 30, 2008 that Israel had disengaged from the Gaza Strip and had “no effective control over what occurred there.” Instead, Samson argues, Gaza's unique "intermediate" legal status should be recognized to allow the Palestinians to exercise complete autonomy, laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state existing peacefully beside Israel. However, the UN's official policy has not changed since Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman, Farhan Haq, declared in 2009 that "the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory." The UN terminology continues to appear. A September 22 report in the name of Mr. Ban speaks of a UN mission’s visit to the “occupied Palestinian territory, specifically the Gaza Strip.” In May, Richard Falk, the UN's permanent investigator on alleged Israeli violations, referred to the "occupied Gaza Strip." A UN fact sheet on "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" includes Gaza.

All hail the Communist mantra...

More Indoctrination From the ‘Occupy’ Songwriters at Kid Pan Alley

Earlier this week, a Virginia-based organization came under fire for leading 3^rd grade students at Woodbrook Elementary in Charlottesville to write a song titled “We Are Part of the 99.”

The song, with its reference to the 1 percent and 99 percent was obviously talking about the Occupy protests that occurred around the country.

According to the school district’s story, the students wrote:

I used to be part of the 1 percent

I worked all the time

Never saw my family

Couldn’t make life rhyme

Then the bubble burst

When I was in 3^rd grade, I knew about bubbles in the bath, not housing bubbles.

Now another video has emerged which was produced by Kid Pan Alley, the same organization that “helped” the students write the Occupy song.

Posted a couple weeks prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration, the organization posted a video of a song written by 2^nd graders in Fairfax County, Virginia.

(more…)

Getting the government out of the marketplace

Congressman & Chevy Dealer Introduces Bill To End EV Tax Credit

A few days ago, the Washington Post demanded the execution of the $7,500 tax credit for EVs. Republican Congressman Mike Kelly is ready to comply. He introduced H.R. 3768, legislation that would repeal the $7,500 tax credit for plug-in electric drive vehicles. The odd thing is: Kelly is owner of Kelly Chevrolet-Cadillac in Butler, PA. The not so odd thing is: He knows firsthand whether the car is worth tax payer money or not. Kelly does not think so:

“While our nation borrows 42 cents on every dollar, taxpayers are paying for an electric vehicle tax credit that has cost tens of millions of dollars, and that largely benefits upper-income Americans. According to General Motors Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson, the average income of a Volt owner is $170,000 a year.”

“I introduced legislation to repeal the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit because, quite simply, our nation can no longer afford to subsidize vehicles that not only lack market demand, but whose safety has been called into question. In addition to the Chevy Volt, which is currently under federal investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration after the batteries of three crash-tested Volts caught on fire, the safety of Fisker’s electric vehicle has been recently scrutinized as well.”

How would you vote?

Bring him back so Obama can give him a voter ID

DUI suspect on the run — victim’s family blames politicians

As I recall bond was intended for people who had a bond to the community. That doesn't work for illegal immigrants.

The madness of the tort lottery must be ended

Miss. judge tosses $322M asbestos lawsuit verdict

The irrationality of the new American society that lives off other people's money and also gives other people's money away

What makes this man worth 322 million dollars

Fighting radical Islam

Report on Biased Textbooks Goes to 500 Superintendents

The Christian Action Network has sent 500 school superintendents a report showing that many textbooks are biased against Israel and the West while whitewashing radical Islam. The report, authored by Citizens for National Security, examines 200 quotes from 30 textbooks used in Florida.

Posted By Ryan Mauro

“[Students] aren’t being taught about the theological motivations behind radical Islam,” said Martin Mawyer, President of the Christian Action Network.

“The impression students are given is that terrorists are misguided fighters against Western imperialism and aggression, who are only wrong in their approach. It was amazing how many times the word ‘Palestine’ was used, making it sound like Israel was built on top of a conquered country,” he said.

The report lists several quotes from textbooks teaching students that the 9/11 attacks were a response to U.S. foreign policy. For example, one book says, “What were the sources of Muslim anger?…bin Laden declared that the attacks were a response to the ‘humiliation and disgrace’ that have afflicted the Islamic world for over eighty years.”

Another teaches that Bin Laden was motivated by the “military presence of the sacred soil of the Arabian peninsula and its support for Israel’s hostility to Palestinian nationalism.” The ideology of radical Islam is not discussed. While Bin Laden’s statements about the West’s foreign policies are mentioned, quotes about his ideology are not. For example, Raymond Ibrahim in “The Al-Qaeda Reader” brings to light this quote from Osama Bin Laden:

“In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case at the dawn of Islam.”

The texts also are also unfavorable to Israel. One textbook states, “Angered over the loss of their territory to Israel, some militant Palestinians responded with a policy of terrorist attacks.” In discussing the 1948 war, one textbook just says that “war soon broke out” without explaining that the Arabs invaded Israel with the objective of destroying it.

It then says, “By the end of the 1948 war, Israel controlled almost three fourths of Palestine, including land in the Negev Desert and half of Jerusalem. Jordan and Egypt divided the rest of Palestine between them.” Coupled together, it sounds if the war was one of conquest by Israel.

The report documents numerous instances where Islam is treated more favorably than Christianity. For example, one textbook states, “The Quran permitted fair, defensive war as jihad, or ‘struggle in the way of God,” and says that is how Islam expanded. Another selected quote is that Jews and Christians “have historically enjoyed religious freedom in many Muslim societies.”

“[Islamic forces] rarely imposed their religion by force on the local population…By contrast, Christian monks motivated by missionary fervor, converted many of the peoples of central and eastern Europe,” is another textbook excerpt included in the report.

Some textbooks took a blatantly skeptical stance towards the historical accuracy of Judaism and Christianity.

“A few loyal followers of Jesus spread the story that Jesus had overcome death,” is how one describes the birth of Christianity. As for the history of the Jews, “Many scholars today doubt that the early books of the Hebrew Bible reflect the true history of the early Israelites.”

The full report can be found at the Christian Action Network’s website here.

Two other incidents since 2010 showed how pervasive biased education is. In Georgia Campbell Middle School, students in a seventh grade class had to complete an assignment that included a fictional letter from a Saudi woman advocating Sharia Law.

“Women in the West do not have the protection of the Sharia as we do here. If our marriage has problems, my husband can take another wife rather than divorce me, and I would still be cared for…I feel very fortunate that we have the Sharia,” the text reads.

In September 2010, FrontPage covered how New York’s statewide high school Regents exam required students to read outrageously biased essays about history. According to one reading, “Wherever they went, the Moslems brought with them their love of art, beauty and learning. From about the eighth to the eleventh century, their culture was superior in many ways to that of western [sic] Christendom.”

Guest speakers on current events at schools are also a problem. In 2010, controversy erupted at Clarence High School in New York because of a guest speaker named Hassan Shibly. I interviewed him extensively and reviewed his Facebook page and published the results. He denied that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, instead calling it a “resistance organization.” Since then, he has joined the Council on American-Islamic Relations as the Executive Director of its Tampa chapter. He recently was a guest speaker in over a dozen high school classes in the area, addressing about 500 students.

The next generation will one day lead this country and decide its fate. Its education must be taken with the utmost seriousness. If today’s aspiring leaders are incorrectly taught about our values and security, then they will incorrectly lead on values and security.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Did you know Al Gore is a backer?

Obama backers are getting rich on green causes

Over the holidays, the New York Times reported: “Fisker Automotive is recalling all 239 of its 2012 Karma luxury plug-in hybrid cars because of a fire hazard.”

Not mentioned in the report was the fact that the Obama administration had given this tiny car company a Solyndra-sized loan of $529 million. Banks loans the money with the understanding that if the company flops, taxpayers will repay the loan. That Fisker received a loan at all was odd, since Fisker builds its cars in Uusikaupunki, Finland. But the Wall Street Journal reported that Al Gore is a backer of Fisker. That may explain why the Obama administration approved the loan.

To be fair, its competitor in the electric/hybrid luxury cars is Tesla. It received a $465 million loan from the Obama administration to make cars in Britain. Tesla was co-founded by Elon Musk, a frequent donor to the Obama campaign and a critic of Republicans for what he calls “NASA pork.” Musk also founded SpaceX, which received a $75 million under a NASA program to develop commercial spacecraft. Republicans want to cut funding to this program.

Both Tesla and Fisker are headquartered in California.

I mentioned Solyndra. Billionaire George Kaiser and his tax-exempt family foundation own about 37 percent of it. Solyndra was the showcase for President Obama’s efforts to create 2 million green jobs. It made solar panels and received a $535 million loan from the Obama administration. The company went bust this summer, which put more than 1,000 people out of work. Taxpayers likely will eat that loan.

I should mention that Kaiser was a bundler — a man who raised hundreds of thousands for Obama’s campaign in 2008. He also made 16 trips to the White House before the deal was sealed, although he denies he participated in any loan discussions.

Alternative energy is one of the best boondoggles going. Who can be against saving the planet and creating 2 million green jobs? This beats defense contracting by miles. The green company does not have to produce a thing for the government.

Apparently recharging electric cars can involve a fire hazard. Besides the Karma, the Chevy Volt has had recharging fires. My take on electric cars is that if Thomas Edison could not get them to work, no one can. But if Al Gore wants to spend his money chasing this idea down the wind, let him. He shouldn’t do it with our money.

One more thing: While the federal government is demanding that appliances operate with less electricity and phasing out the incandescent light bulb (which Edison did get to work) in the name of saving electricity, why is the government working to increase demand for electricity by throwing billions at luxury electric car companies?

I would rather stick with the light bulb I have and a gasoline-powered automobile.

Besides, if I trade in my Mustang for a Tesla Roadster or Fisker Karma, won’t I be increasing my carbon footprint by using so much more electricity from the coal-fired John Amos plant?

In May 2010, President Obama visited the Solyndra plant in California.

“The promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith — not anymore,” Obama said at the time. “The future is here.”

I guess that means America’s future is in bankruptcy court.

Good news

South Sudan, Israel’s New Ally

Democrat culture of corruption

Assemblyman Boyland Jr. vows to promote bills while facing corruption charges

By MITCHEL MADDUX

He's not going to let being indicted get in the way of his Albany agenda!

Even as Assemblyman William Boyland Jr. was arraigned in Brooklyn federal court today on wide-ranging corruption charges, he vowed to move quickly next week to promote a series of bills in the legislature and robustly continue to represent constituents in his Brownsville district.

"We're going to be introducing 15 new pieces of legislation - that's the job," Boyland said after his arraignment on bribery and extortion charges.

"My job is to go to Albany to represent [my constituents], which is what I plan to do next Monday," Boyland said.

Back in his district, the Democratic legislator says he has been buoyed by the good will of well-wishers and residents who were not concerned about the corruption allegations he faces.

"The support is there. There's a lot of integrity in that community," Boyland said.

While acknowledging the stress of a federal prosecution, Boyland said he is confident that he will be cleared of the charges.

Boyland and his aide, Ry-ann Hermon, face corruption charges for allegedly soliciting bribes to fast-track real estate developments and help a carnival promoter.

Wonder

'The Hoff' crab is new ocean find

Anti Constitutional arrogance: it's Obama's way

Obama makes unprecedented recess appointment

Breaks Democrats’ own rule from Bush administration

President Obama on Wednesday used his recess appointment powers to name a head for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in a move Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab.

Mr. Obama made the appointment of Richard Cordray even though the Senate, which has the power to confirm nominees, considers itself still in session.

But the White House argues Republican senators stonewalled the nominee too long and Mr. Obama had no choice but to circumvent them.

In making the appointment, Mr. Obama rejected the precedent set by former President Clinton and one Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats set under President George W. Bush in 2007 and 2008.

"Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

GOP House Speaker John A. Boehner called the move "an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department."

"The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution," the Ohio Republican said in a statement.

The Constitution gives the president the power to make appointments when the Senate is not in session and able to confirm them. Traditionally that has been understood to mean when the Senate has adjourned for a recess longer than 10 days, and a Clinton administration legal opinion said a recess must be at least three days.

Mr. Obama, though, acted only a day after the Senate held a session, albeit an abbreviated one with no real business transacted.

Mr. Obama's move also contradicts the precedent he and fellow Democrats abided by in 2007 and 2008 when they used the same three-day strategy to prevent Mr. Bush from making his own recess appointments.

"I am keeping the Senate in pro forma to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said on Nov. 16, 2007, as he announced his strategy of having the Senate convene twice-a-week for pro forma sessions.

By abrogating that understanding, Mr. Obama threatened to spark a full legislative war with Congress.

"Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress's role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch," Mr. McConnell said.

Obama: the rogue administration

Probe reveals feds pressuring agents to rush immigrant visas – even if fraud is feared

Higher-ups within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are pressuring rank-and-file officers to rubber-stamp immigrants’ visa applications, sometimes against the officers’ will, according to a Homeland Security report and internal documents exclusively obtained by The Daily.

A 40-page report, drafted by the Office of Inspector General in September but not publicly released, details the immense pressure immigration service officers are under to approve visa applications quickly, sometimes while overlooking concerns about fraud, eligibility or security.

One-quarter of the 254 officers surveyed said they have been pressured to approve questionable cases, sometimes “against their will.”

The report does not call out any particular officials and indicates that the agency has had a problem with valuing quantity over quality since at least the 1980s.

But high-ranking USCIS officials said the pressure has heightened after the Obama administration appointed Alejandro Mayorkas as director in August 2009 during an effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform, bringing with him a mantra of “get to yes.”

Internal communications provided to The Daily indicate that the new leadership seemed to fundamentally clash with career agency employees over when to afford the benefit of the doubt, culminating in a whistle-blower investigation into a senior appointee and, ultimately, the agency-wide inspector general inquiry that produced the report.

“We recognize their right to interpret things as liberally as possible, but you still have to follow the law,” said one high-ranking official who was unhappy with the current push.

At least five agency veterans seen as being too tough on applicants were either demoted, or given the choice between a demotion or a relocation from Southern California — where their families were — to San Francisco and Nebraska, according to sources and letters of reassignment provided to The Daily.

Those kind of threats have caused lower-level employees to fall in line, sources said.

“People are afraid,” said one longtime manager, who requested anonymity for fear of being fired. “Integrity only carries people so far because they’ve got to pay the rent.”

A rank-and-file officer who was not involved in the investigation claimed he was demoted to working on less technical cases because he had a high denial rate. “They don’t reprimand you, they just move you,” he said.

“They attempted to basically get me to come into line and approve a bunch of cases. And I just wouldn’t compromise myself because the approvals they ordered, they weren’t in line with the laws,” said the officer.

These employees’ claims are reflected in the inspector general report, which found that 14 percent of respondents had “serious concerns” that employees who focused on fraud or ineligibility were evaluated unfairly. The report also found that supervisors sometimes take cases away from an unwilling officer and assign them to someone else, against agency rules.

Recommendations for improvements in the report included raising the burden of proof and doing away with the popular informal and special appeals practices, which immigration lawyers said would only lengthen an already onerous process.

Attorney David Leopold, who was recently president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the formal appeals process can take up to two years.

“When you’re dealing with business visas, those visas cannot wait around a year, or two years, for review. They needed an answer yesterday,” said Leopold. “I think when they’ve [the officers] made a mistake at that level ... sometimes you can just reason with people and ask them to take a look at it again.”

Nevertheless, USCIS approved 86 percent of the 3.9 million immigration cases it reviewed between October 2008 and October 2009 — a 4 percent drop from the year before, according to the most recent data provided to The Daily.

And immigration attorneys complained that it seems like officers are just looking for reasons to deny a case, and already demand a higher standard of proof than what is required. That standard is now considered a 51 percent likelihood that a fact is true.

“We’re getting ridiculous denials and requests for evidence on things that should be approved very easily,” said immigration attorney Deb Notkin, adding that it’s particularly tough for specialty industries like fashion, software development and graphic design.

The attorneys applauded Mayorkas’ more open dialogue with them, and other proponents of immigration reform, who had previously felt shut out of the bureaucracy. “Mayorkas, to his credit, is very accessible, so we are able to express our concerns about the adjudication process,” said Leopold.

But sometimes, the openness led to a perception that private attorneys were “running” the agency, according to the inspector general’s report, which cited emails in which individual cases were granted special review after private attorneys complained to management.

Mayorkas and Homeland Security press officers said yesterday they could not comment on the allegations.

Sarah.Ryley@thedaily.com


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

Homeland insecurity

The Daily has exclusively obtained a Homeland Security Office of Inspector General draft report on fraud detection issues within the agency’s immigration arm. The inspector general interviewed 147 managers and staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, and received 256 responses to an online survey. Here are some of the findings in the report.

“63 of 254 Immigration Services Officers (24.8%) responded that they have been pressured to approve questionable applications.”

“Several USCIS employees informed us that officers have been required to approve specific cases against their will.”

“Another 35 ISOs (13.9%) had serious concerns concerns that employees who focus on fraud or ineligibility were evaluated unfairly.”

“Cases are sometimes taken away from us and given to officers who the supervisor knows will approve the case … Another survey respondent was threatened with a formal reprimand if a case was not approved as the supervisor required.”

“… data confirm that USCIS was more likely to grant O visa status [for aliens who have extraordinary ability in science, arts, business, or athletics] incorrectly than to deny a legitimate position.”

Source: Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, “The Effects of USCIS Adjudication Procedures and Policies on Fraud Detection by Immigration Service Officers,” September 2011.

The Varieties of Anti-Intellectualism

Armed and Dangerous has an interesting short essay on the varieties of what is called 'Anti-intellectualism':

One of the recurring features of American intellectual life is hand-wringing over “anti-intellectualism” by, of course, intellectuals.
One of my regular commenters has pointed out that the term and concept of anti-intellectualism are used to describe several distinct phenomena that are relatively easily confused. He’s right, and I think it could bring some clarity to the murkier corners of the culture wars to develop the point.
Note: The term “intellectual” is not infrequently applied to me. By the end of this essay it should be clear why, though I recognize the justice in that application, I’m not completely happy with it.
One kind of “anti-intellectualism” is opposition to “intellectuals” considered as an interest group or social class in the Marxian sense – what Russian writers called theintelligentsia. The only more specific term I can think of for this is anti-intelligentsianism, an ugly coinage which will have to do for the duration of this essay.
Another kind is what I’ll call traditionalism. The traditionalist believes that intellectuals discard or undervalue what Russell Kirk called “the organic wisdom of institutions” (in England and continental Europe this position is associated with Edmund Burke). The traditionalist opposes intellectuals not because they form an interest group but because he believes their ceaseless questioning carelessly damages the organic fabric of society, woven by history and supporting human happiness in ways not understood until it is torn asunder.
Next we come to what I’ll call the epistemic-skeptical anti-intellectual. His complaint is that intellectuals are too prone to overestimate their own cleverness and attempt to commit society to vast utopian schemes that invariably end badly. Where the traditionalist decries intellectuals’ corrosion of the organic social fabric, the epistemic skeptic is more likely to be exercised by disruption of the signals that mediate voluntary economic exchanges. This position is often associated with Friedrich Hayek; one of its more notable exponents in the U.S. is Thomas Sowell, who has written critically about the role of intellectuals in society.
Less commonly, we encounter what might be called totalizing anti-intellectualism. Where the traditionalist wishes to preserve what is or was, the totalizing anti-intellectual wants to remake the world by any means necessary. He is a partisan for a specific totalizing system of thought which regards the methods and habits of intellectuals (and possibly the traditionalist’s fabric of society, too) as its enemy. In Europe the totalizing system is likely to be romantic blood-and-soil nationalism, Marxism, or Fascism; in the U.S. it is likely to be fundamentalist Christianity. Elsewhere, under the influence of the anti-rationalism of Al-Ghazali, Islam teaches a particularly violent and exclusive variant of totalizing anti-intellectualism.
Finally, we have what I’ll call the thalamic anti-intellectual. The thalamic anti-intellectual’s opposition is not ideological but personal and gut-level. There can be many reasons for this, but one that will stand for all is that intellectuals make him feel inferior and personally threatened.
These are five different phenomena with different sources. So, when American intellectuals rail against “anti-intellectualism”, it’s important to pin down which kind they are actually talking about. And a major, related problem is that intellectuals sometimes pretend to be talking about one kind of anti-intellectualism as a way of discrediting another against which they don’t actually have good arguments.

Read the rest here.

Happy New Year!

from Mark Steyn:

Ring out the new, ring in the old.

No, hang on, that should be the other way around, shouldn’t it? Not as far as 2011 was concerned. The year began with a tea-powered Republican caucus taking control of the House of Representatives and pledging to rein in spendaholic government. It ended with President Obama making a pro forma request for a mere $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. This will raise government debt to $16.4 trillion — a new world record! If only until he demands the next debt-ceiling increase in three months’ time.

At the end of 2011, America, like much of the rest of the Western world, has dug deeper into a cocoon of denial. Tens of millions of Americans remain unaware that this nation is broke — broker than any nation has ever been. A few days before Christmas, we sailed across the psychological Rubicon and joined the club of nations whose government debt now exceeds their total GDP. It barely raised a murmur — and those who took the trouble to address the issue noted complacently that our 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio is a mere two-thirds of Greece’s. That’s true, but at a certain point per capita comparisons are less relevant than the sheer hard dollar sums: Greece owes a few rinky-dink billions; America owes more money than anyone has ever owed anybody ever.

ublic debt has increased by 67 percent over the last three years, and too many Americans refuse even to see it as a problem. For most of us, “$16.4 trillion” has no real meaning, any more than “$17.9 trillion” or “$28.3 trillion” or “$147.8 bazillion.” It doesn’t even have much meaning for the guys spending the dough: Look into the eyes of Barack Obama or Harry Reid or Barney Frank, and you realize that, even as they’re borrowing all this money, they have no serious intention of paying any of it back. That’s to say, there is no politically plausible scenario under which the 16.4 trillion is reduced to 13.7 trillion, and then 7.9 trillion, and eventually 173 dollars and 48 cents. At the deepest levels within our governing structures, we are committed to living beyond our means on a scale no civilization has ever done.

Our most enlightened citizens think it’s rather vulgar and boorish to obsess about debt. The urbane, educated, Western progressive would rather “save the planet,” a cause which offers the grandiose narcissism that, say, reforming Medicare lacks. So, for example, a pipeline delivering Canadian energy from Alberta to Texas is blocked by the president on no grounds whatsoever except that the very thought of it is an aesthetic affront to the moneyed Sierra Club types who infest his fundraisers. The offending energy, of course, does not simply get mothballed in the Canadian attic: The Dominion’s prime minister has already pointed out that they’ll sell it to the Chinese, whose Politburo lacks our exquisitely refined revulsion at economic dynamism, and indeed seems increasingly amused by it. Pace the ecopalyptics, the planet will be just fine: Would it kill you to try saving your country, or state, or municipality?

The rest here.

I think it's time to require a special permit for Pit Bulls.

Chicago Jogger Critically Injured by Pit Bulls

Destructive environmentalism of know-nothings

Latin oil supplies for U.S. start to dry up

Canadian pipeline can fill gap

The political and environmental debates swirling around the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas miss a crucial point, energy analysts say: The Canadian oil is needed to replace fast-dwindling production from two other major suppliers of oil — Mexico and Venezuela.

The United States remains the largest consumer of oil in the world, requiring more than 8 million barrels a day of fuel imports to feed its appetite, with nearly half of that coming from oil-rich neighbors in Latin America as recently as 2005.

But oil production south of the border has fallen off dramatically, and Canadian crude in recent years quietly overtook imports from Mexico, Venezuela and even Saudi Arabia to become the most important outside source of oil for the U.S.

The trend toward replacing unstable sources of oil in Latin America and the Middle East with reliable and friendly sources in Canada was heartily welcomed in political circles until the pipeline controversy broke out last year. After trying to delay a decision until after the presidential election, the White House agreed in a compromise with congressional Republicans to determine within the next two months whether to proceed with the pipeline.

Because nearly all of Canada's production will come from the Alberta tar sands served by the Keystone pipeline, energy analysts say, the pipeline extension will be needed to ensure that promising trend continues and that the U.S. does not go back to relying inordinately on unstable and hostile suppliers.

"As traditional supplies of heavy crude from countries such as Mexico and Venezuela decline, Canadian oil sands become more important," said Lucian Pugliaresi, an analyst with the Energy Policy Research Foundation Inc. Canada ships about 2.5 million barrels a day of crude to the U.S., more than twice as much as Mexico and Venezuela combined.

Growing impatient

He said environmentalists have a false idea that killing the pipeline will ensure the Canadian oil stays in the ground while forcing increased U.S. reliance on alternative fuels and conservation. Canada, he said, would continue to develop its vast oil reserves, but would sell it to another customer — most likely China.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said it is little wonder that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper threatened to open routes to Asia after the Obama administration delayed a decision on approving the Keystone pipeline in November.

"Canada cannot be wholly dependent on the vagaries of U.S. politics," he said. Rising tensions and instability around the world should "give new urgency to assuring that North America's oil resources are developed to what is now their much greater potential," and that will require construction of the XL pipeline, he said.

Expansion of the vast pipeline network between the U.S. and Canada is the most efficient way to funnel the tar sands oil to consumers — generating fewer environmental pollutants than an overseas route to Asia, analysts say. They add that it seems a natural fit, given the historically friendly and beneficial economic ties between the countries.

U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast, where Canadian oil would be sent in the Keystone plan, are geared up to turn the heavy tar sands crude into gasoline and other essential fuels because of their experience refining heavy crudes from Mexico and Venezuela. The processing of heavy crudes requires costly equipment upgrades not available at all refineries.

Because oil production from Mexico and Venezuela fell drastically in the past decade, the Gulf Coast refineries now have the capacity to process an additional 500,000 barrels per day of Canadian crude that would come through the pipeline. Refineries closer to Canada — in Chicago, for example — are operating at full production and do not have the capacity to handle more crude.

Jobs versus environment

Mr. Obama's decision on the pipeline often has been portrayed as one pitting jobs versus the environment. Construction of the pipeline would create thousands of construction jobs, at least temporarily. Meanwhile, powerful environmental groups remain fiercely opposed to development of the tar sands because the extraction process releases more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than conventional drilling.

Patrick Moore, a former leader of Greenpeace who dropped out of the environmental movement because he disagreed with its almost single-minded focus on global warming, said Canada has one of the best records of any country on protecting the environment.

Environmental activists "live in a dream world," he said, where they believe exotic, expensive and intermittent energy sources like wind and solar power will soon replace proven fuels like oil and coal — even though those conventional fuels provide an overwhelming share of the world's energy and will continue to do so for decades.

"We need oil now and we'll need it for the foreseeable future, so it matters greatly where the oil comes from," he said. "Canadian producers must meet some of the toughest environmental and social standards on the planet" — far above the world's other top oil producers.

Energy analysts say the decision goes far beyond the tension between jobs and the environment. The battle over the pipeline may determine whether the U.S. is able to cultivate reliable sources of oil in its own backyard or will continue to be whipsawed by the vagaries of politics and foreign suppliers.

Beyond the border

Oil production in Venezuela has been on the decline since President Hugo Chavez — who is openly hostile to the U.S. — nationalized the country's resources in the past decade, making what was once a top source of imported fuel now among the most iffy for U.S. consumers.

Meanwhile, production in Mexico's huge oil fields — the largest of which was once as prolific and extensive as Saudi Arabia's — has peaked and is rapidly falling. Mexico lacks the technological expertise to maintain output in its aging wells, and its constitution prohibits teaming with Western oil companies to do so.

The question goes beyond replacing one source of foreign oil with another, energy specialists say. Enormous reserves of oil that are trapped in shale rock have been discovered in the U.S.

Technological advances such as "fracking," which fractures the rock to release oil, have started to produce significant amounts of fuel.

The biggest shale oil producer, North Dakota, pumps more than 450,000 barrels a day. About 100,000 barrels of North Dakota's output were slated to be funneled into the Keystone pipeline, a move that would have encouraged further development of such domestic oil reserves.

"The project is an essential piece of new petroleum infrastructure as the midcontinent region of the United States no longer has any water-borne imports," Mr. Pugliaresi said.

He noted that Ohio may be the next to start producing oil from the shale rock underlying the state.

In Canada, leaders are patiently awaiting Mr. Obama's decision and remain hopeful, but they have made clear they will continue to exploit their oil resources with or without the U.S. Ottawa has the option of building a pipeline to its west coast, where the oil could be loaded onto tankers and shipped to Asian markets.

China appears to be waiting eagerly. Three of its state-owned oil companies have established stakes and spent $10 billion developing the Canadian tar sands. One has shown interest in helping to build a west coast pipeline.

"It's a bit naive to think the tar sands would not be developed if they don't build that pipeline," Austan Goolsbee, Mr. Obama's former top economic adviser, told the Economic Club of Canada last month. "Eventually, it's going to be built. It may go to the Pacific, it may go through Nebraska, but it's going be built somewhere."

The anti gun business ATF. This is how central planning works.

Gun makers baffled by ATF criteria

Models OK’d on case-by-case basis

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in charge of determining whether a gun model is legal, but the agency won't say much about its criteria.

Despite overseeing an industry that includes machine guns and other deadly weapons, ATF regulations for the manufacture of weapons are often unclear, leading to reliance on a secretive system by which firearms manufacturers can submit proposed weapons for testing and find out one at a time whether they comply with the law, critics say.

The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination. But those judgments are private and, it turns out, sometimes contradictory. Critics say nearly identical prototypes can be approved for one manufacturer but denied for another.

That process, known as "letter rulings," results in various findings about what makes a weapon. Program critics, including the ATF's former assistant director of criminal investigations, said one determination contended that a shoestring was a machine gun.

The letters are sent only to the person submitting the weapon, making it hard for other gun manufacturers, designers and dealers looking for guidance to make judgments about the agency's evolving interpretations of the federal code. That lack of publication also means that no one knows when the agency issues rulings at odds with similar cases.

'Definitely contradictory'

Robert E. Sanders, an ATF official for 24 years who is now a North Carolina lawyer specializing in firearms matters, said letter rulings are often "definitely contradictory and inconsistent," but are necessary because the regulations being applied are ill-defined.

"It is hard to tell what ATF wants you to do without submitting your product and asking for a letter ruling," he said. "You can't tell what the agency has said in the past to others, because those letter rulings are generally secret. How could somebody know how to comply with the law?"

Mr. Sanders also serves as one of 75 members of the National Rifle Association's board of directors.

The letters come from the agency's Firearms Technology Branch, which tests weapons and related equipment that are submitted voluntarily for compliance rulings.

Mr. Sanders said that submitting a weapon for testing is a "costly and lengthy process" that would not be necessary if the ATF wrote detailed regulations. For example, he said, there are no written regulations on how to modify a machine gun made before a ban went into effect in 1986.

He noted that ATF once issued a letter ruling saying a 14-inch shoestring was a machine gun because it could be used to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. The letter was later rescinded.

In other cases, the ATF has rescinded letter rulings and caused problems for those who had begun production or sales based on approvals. Contradictory rulings have cost gun manufacturers and dealers hundreds of thousands of dollars in spent and anticipated revenue.

Changes can be costly

Len Savage, a Georgia firearms designer and manufacturer, said what ATF allows and disallows "follows no rhyme or reason" and described the regulatory technique as "enforcement by ambush."

The owner of Historic Arms LLC, which makes and designs semi-automatic replicas of famous firearms, called the letters "worthless" because agency officials "can change their mind on a whim."

Mr. Savage said it is impossible to know what is compliant and that the ATF can spontaneously rescind approvals for any project.

He said the ATF told him in a July 2005 letter that he could convert machine guns legally owned by collectors into belt-fed weapons, but said in April 2006 that it was overturning its decision "upon reconsideration."

"It cost me $500,000 in orders," he said, adding that he was forced to destroy several weapons he had built because ATF would not grandfather them.

He said he had seen letters showing that two different companies submitted weapons for testing, with one declared legal and the other ruled illegal even though they were "dimensionally and operationally identical."

In its National Firearms Act Handbook, the ATF says manufacturers are not required to submit prototypes for testing, but they are "well advised" to do so "before going to the trouble and expense of producing it." The handbook says that asking for a letter ruling "is a good business practice to avoid an unintended classification and violations of the law."

The handbook also notes that "classifications are subject to change if later determined to be erroneous or impacted by subsequent changes in the law or regulations."

ATF spokesman Drew Wade declined to answer specific questions about letter rulings, citing ongoing litigation such as an Arizona criminal case in which the legality of modified weapons is at issue.

In a statement, he said only that the Firearms Technology Branch is the "federal technical authority" on weapons and their classification and that it provides assistance to the firearms industry and public by "responding to technical inquiries, and the testing and classification of products submitted."

Video documentation

Rep. Phil Gingrey, Georgia Republican, said the ATF's lack of "clear and straightforward guidelines" for firearm testing is a "serious problem."

"When the rules are subjective and continue to change, we cannot expect these business owners to comply with moving target regulations," he said in an email. "These inconsistent rulings from the bureau are confusing and result in a waste of time and resources."

On four occasions, Mr. Gingrey has unsuccessfully introduced the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act to require the ATF to make video recordings of its firearms tests. The bill is now before a House Judiciary subcommittee and the House Ways and Means Committee.

"Requiring the ATF to make video recordings of the testing and examination of firearms and ammunition — and allowing manufacturers access to the video documentation — will make it easier for manufacturers to contest and review testing decisions, bring consistency to the testing process, and leveling the playing field for the ATF and gun manufacturers, many of whom have been driven out of business by inconsistent and unfair testing procedures," Mr. Gingrey said.

Bill Akins, a Florida inventor, said the ATF initially approved his Akins Accelerator to increase the firing speed of semi-automatic rifles to simulate fully automatics, but later ruled the device illegal — leaving him with $500,000 worth of useless inventory.

In 2008, he filed a lawsuit against the ATF claiming the new ruling was arbitrary and capricious and violated his right to due process, an argument rejected by district and appellate courts.

"An ATF letter opinion is worthless," he said. "It is not law, and it can be changed at the whim of a bureaucrat."

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said letter rulings can be "all over the map," particularly on the point in the manufacturing process when a piece of metal becomes a firearm subject to federal law.

He said the rulings are determined on "an ad hoc basis" and that it is nearly impossible to comply with the law with no clear definition from the ATF and varying interpretations from the courts.

"It is unfair for ATF to hold individuals to a standard that they cannot articulate themselves," he said.

How the news is manipulated.

WHEN JOURNALISM BECOMES PROPAGANDA

One of the clichés of popular science is that the very act of observing changes the phenomenon being observed. This is obviously not literally true of all physical phenomena; it would seem to apply more to social science than the hard sciences. But it surely applies to journalism. We’re long past the point where we note with any surprise that journalists are part of the stories they cover, especially election campaigns. At some point, though, journalism crosses the line and becomes part of a propaganda campaign.

There were a few reported instances back in the late 1960s and early 1970s where TV crews showed up at college campuses with anti-war signs to pass out to students to make sure they got the right visuals. And then there’s this devastating expose by a young Italian journalist named Ruben Salvadori about how photojournalists have become not merely part of the story of Palestinian unrest on the West Bank, but the instigators of it. This eight-minute video clip is devastating:

Video link: