No guns allowed, declares city, it's a 'snow emergency'
Hidden state laws ban firearm sales, even possession, during crises
Residents of King, N.C., were startled earlier this month when a declared snow emergency triggered a law forbidding the possession of firearms in public.
Furthermore, North Carolina isn't the only state where authorities can ban gun sales, or even possession, upon declaration of "emergency," even though what constitutes an "emergency" might be deemed questionable.
According to North Carolina statute 14-288.7, when a municipality declares a state of emergency in which "public safety authorities are unable to … afford adequate protection for lives or property" – such as during the recent East Coast record snowfall – "it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon."
In other words, when the cops can't get through on the roads, the citizens can't take guns off their own property.
"This has to be the most ridiculous event of the century!" protested a commenter on the website of Winston-Salem's WXII-TV, which reported the ban. "This is the ultimate denial of liberties for the most asinine reason ... bad weather!"
But King Police Chief Paula May told the station that when the City Council and county authorities declared the emergency, regardless of the reason, state law took over.
"By law, statute 14-288.7 automatically went into effect," May told WXII. "And that law, which goes into effect when there's a state of emergency, prohibits the transportation, purchase, sale and possession of firearms other than on one's own premises."
Other states also have laws restricting firearm use that lie dormant until a declared state of emergency, a fact that worries some gun rights activists.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125245
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
No Guns Carry During Emergency Declaration
Global warming UNraveled Not Settled Science
The Continuing Climate Meltdown
More embarrassments for the U.N. and 'settled' science.
It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.
First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.
Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
Monday, February 15, 2010
Pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic for which flag stands
A single comment made by Michael Krajovic should be a rallying sound to all who understand the true foundation of our nation. We who know that the Pledge of Allegiance is to the United States flag and to the republic - if you can keep it - for which the flag of the United States stands - must reject the continued attempt by anyone, even Sarah Palin, to tag our nation as a democracy, and to misguidedly claim our 'service' by way of collective taxation is to fund whatever the government determines is the 'united common good.'
By way of a question, Mr. Krajovic posed in his published statement (Herald-Standard Significance of new vo-tech school not to be underestimated February 14, 2010) higher taxation for the building of a new vocational technical center is not just a must-do, it is an absolute must for the life of the county and its economy.
Krajovic's words are not just chilling. They show a frame of mind that wholly believes that your individual right to earn a living by working and what you do with those earnings is not your individual right.
Your hard-earned money is not yours to do with as you wish. No. Your money must be taken from you in the form of not simply 'just' taxes - just meaning for those functions which are the domain of government - limited government by design - but your income in taxes must be taken from you at a higher level to enable the dream of others who desire whatever they desire to be fulfilled.
In this case, what Mr. Krajovic desires is a new vocational technical "public" school building funded with an increase in local property taxation which is the form of taxation in Pennsylvania that funds our public school system.
To Mr. Krajovic, we pledge allegiance to the "united common good."
And what Mr. Krajovic believes is the united common good, a new building, must be funded or the county gains over the last many years, in his opinion and mind, will be lost.
Had Mr. Krajovic used the word "collective" common good, he'd have given up the game he and others have played for decades. By using "united" common good he hides behind the word that actually has a far different understanding than "collective."
Mr. Krajovic, a private citizen, at the helm of an economic development agency (public-private), wants an increase in taxes for his desire, his dream.
We've heard this one before. Private citizen wants some thing promoted as being for the public's common good. Instead of using all private resources, one's own, or those collected from others voluntarily, the private citizen wants public monies, every other taxpayer's hard-earned salary or property, taxed for whatever will fulfill the dream.
An amphitheater which sponsors plays.
A coal-mine small scale theme park.
Renovation of theaters.
Mr. Krajovic can't even think for one moment, if he or others making hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries annually want these things why don't they pool their collective private resources and fulfill their own dream?
Why not? Because they can free up their own monies for whatever else they want and desire for themselves - a private collection of artwork, perhaps a speedboat or new car every year - by having the cost of their dream shared by the public.
To their benefit, they often head up agencies and charitable organizations that pay them some no small fee for their services.
The public has no recourse but to pay the taxes they are obligated to pay at threat of loss of residence or business property, and fines, and potentially jail time for failure to pay whatever government deems is the cost of government.
How does Mr. Krajovic explain the failure of the Keystone Opportunity Zone program, ongoing for ten years, and recently extended for another 7-years, maybe longer if new legislation comes along after 7-years, to draw the kind of manufacturing plants or even industrial plants that would employ hundreds of thousands of new employees, promised by Mr. Krajovic in making his pitch to the municipal, school, and county boards of supervisors, directors, and commissioners?
Mr. Krajovic doesn't explain any failure of the KOZs to attract the massive influx of investment, and the creation of new jobs, not merely recycled jobs as has been the norm not only in Fayette, but across the state of Pennsylvania.
We have called for the board of commissioners to dismiss the entity Mr. Krajovic presides over, Fay Penn Economic Development Charity, yes, unbelievable, Charity, as the county's lead economic development 'agency' for some years now.
The commission board should see fit to do so immediately or at least a motion by one commissioner to hopefully gain a second, if not a unanimous vote, should be made at the next meeting of the board.
Mr. Krajovic should be held accountable for his agency which has so far failed the county to generate the promised hundreds of thousands of jobs via the Keystone Opportunity Zones.
Yes the promise ten-years back and counting was high-paying and thousands upon thousands of new jobs, new employers and newcomers from outside the area. Newcomers who would need to build adequate for them houses. Those newcomers would buy or build anew and houses and upscale property would add to the tax base of the individual school districts where located.
Questions should also be asked about ownership of the property proposed as the site of the new taxpayer-bought and funded vocational technical school.
Is the owner of the property an entity with which Mr. Krajovic is affiliated?
If Mr. Krajovic so believes a vocational technical school is absolutely crucial why doesn't he start up a private funding stream if the quality of students promised to be produced are also crucial to the continued existence of the county?
In other words, start your own private school funded wholly through private sources.
That is not something Krajovic believes in since the entirety of his comments rest on the idea of "the united common good."
Chilling comments pepper Mr. Krajovic's piece.
The most dangerous is this idea our very citizenship is based on a pledge of allegiance to the united common good.
our pledge of allegiance to the united common good
this is so misguided it is difficult to know where to begin to burst this fallacy.
Back to the Republic is must-read. As is the Constitution of the United States. As is the body of work called The Federalist Papers.
As is a reading and rereading of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Net the Truth Online
Back to the Republic
http://www.archive.org/details/backtorepublicg00atwogoog
By way of a question, Mr. Krajovic posed in his published statement (Herald-Standard Significance of new vo-tech school not to be underestimated February 14, 2010) higher taxation for the building of a new vocational technical center is not just a must-do, it is an absolute must for the life of the county and its economy.
Krajovic's words are not just chilling. They show a frame of mind that wholly believes that your individual right to earn a living by working and what you do with those earnings is not your individual right.
Your hard-earned money is not yours to do with as you wish. No. Your money must be taken from you in the form of not simply 'just' taxes - just meaning for those functions which are the domain of government - limited government by design - but your income in taxes must be taken from you at a higher level to enable the dream of others who desire whatever they desire to be fulfilled.
In this case, what Mr. Krajovic desires is a new vocational technical "public" school building funded with an increase in local property taxation which is the form of taxation in Pennsylvania that funds our public school system.
To Mr. Krajovic, we pledge allegiance to the "united common good."
And what Mr. Krajovic believes is the united common good, a new building, must be funded or the county gains over the last many years, in his opinion and mind, will be lost.
Had Mr. Krajovic used the word "collective" common good, he'd have given up the game he and others have played for decades. By using "united" common good he hides behind the word that actually has a far different understanding than "collective."
Mr. Krajovic, a private citizen, at the helm of an economic development agency (public-private), wants an increase in taxes for his desire, his dream.
We've heard this one before. Private citizen wants some thing promoted as being for the public's common good. Instead of using all private resources, one's own, or those collected from others voluntarily, the private citizen wants public monies, every other taxpayer's hard-earned salary or property, taxed for whatever will fulfill the dream.
An amphitheater which sponsors plays.
A coal-mine small scale theme park.
Renovation of theaters.
Mr. Krajovic can't even think for one moment, if he or others making hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries annually want these things why don't they pool their collective private resources and fulfill their own dream?
Why not? Because they can free up their own monies for whatever else they want and desire for themselves - a private collection of artwork, perhaps a speedboat or new car every year - by having the cost of their dream shared by the public.
To their benefit, they often head up agencies and charitable organizations that pay them some no small fee for their services.
The public has no recourse but to pay the taxes they are obligated to pay at threat of loss of residence or business property, and fines, and potentially jail time for failure to pay whatever government deems is the cost of government.
How does Mr. Krajovic explain the failure of the Keystone Opportunity Zone program, ongoing for ten years, and recently extended for another 7-years, maybe longer if new legislation comes along after 7-years, to draw the kind of manufacturing plants or even industrial plants that would employ hundreds of thousands of new employees, promised by Mr. Krajovic in making his pitch to the municipal, school, and county boards of supervisors, directors, and commissioners?
Mr. Krajovic doesn't explain any failure of the KOZs to attract the massive influx of investment, and the creation of new jobs, not merely recycled jobs as has been the norm not only in Fayette, but across the state of Pennsylvania.
We have called for the board of commissioners to dismiss the entity Mr. Krajovic presides over, Fay Penn Economic Development Charity, yes, unbelievable, Charity, as the county's lead economic development 'agency' for some years now.
The commission board should see fit to do so immediately or at least a motion by one commissioner to hopefully gain a second, if not a unanimous vote, should be made at the next meeting of the board.
Mr. Krajovic should be held accountable for his agency which has so far failed the county to generate the promised hundreds of thousands of jobs via the Keystone Opportunity Zones.
Yes the promise ten-years back and counting was high-paying and thousands upon thousands of new jobs, new employers and newcomers from outside the area. Newcomers who would need to build adequate for them houses. Those newcomers would buy or build anew and houses and upscale property would add to the tax base of the individual school districts where located.
Questions should also be asked about ownership of the property proposed as the site of the new taxpayer-bought and funded vocational technical school.
Is the owner of the property an entity with which Mr. Krajovic is affiliated?
If Mr. Krajovic so believes a vocational technical school is absolutely crucial why doesn't he start up a private funding stream if the quality of students promised to be produced are also crucial to the continued existence of the county?
In other words, start your own private school funded wholly through private sources.
That is not something Krajovic believes in since the entirety of his comments rest on the idea of "the united common good."
Chilling comments pepper Mr. Krajovic's piece.
The most dangerous is this idea our very citizenship is based on a pledge of allegiance to the united common good.
our pledge of allegiance to the united common good
this is so misguided it is difficult to know where to begin to burst this fallacy.
Back to the Republic is must-read. As is the Constitution of the United States. As is the body of work called The Federalist Papers.
As is a reading and rereading of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Net the Truth Online
(I) pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.
http://wilstar.com/holidays/pledge.htm
Back to the Republic
http://www.archive.org/details/backtorepublicg00atwogoog
Significance of new vo-tech school not to be underestimated
February 14, 2010 01:50 AM TEXT SIZE By: HERALD STANDARD STAFF
http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1642/2010/february/14/significance-of-new-vo-tech-school-not-to-be-underestimated.html
Need new vo-tech school to facilitate education, job issues
February 07, 2010 03:09 AM TEXT SIZE By: HERALD STANDARD STAFF
Herald Standard
http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1220/2010/february/07/need-new-vo-tech-school-to-facilitate-education-job-issues.html
Global Warming UNraveled Climate Change Retreat
Daily Press
The Great Climate Change Retreat
THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.
Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.
MORE FROM EXPRESS.CO.UK ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE...
* WHAT A CLIMATE CON!
* CLIMATE CHANGE 'INDUSTRY' IN DEEP TROUBLE
* CLIMATE SCEPTICS ARE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE
* GLOBAL WARMING 'TO BECOME' GLOBAL COOLING
The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.
The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.
Last month we revealed how the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was “speculation” lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review.
The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.
Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble “keeping track” of the information.
Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.
Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
Friday, February 12, 2010
Politics PA: Report on whether special election Murtha vacancy
UPDATED — PoliticsPA: Rendell undecided when to hold special election
By Alex Roarty and Louis Jacobson
PoliticsPA Staff Writers
Gov. Ed Rendell said Monday he hasn’t decided whether he’ll hold a special election to replace the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha on or before the state’s May 18th primary.
The governor told reporters on a conference call that his “inclination as always is to save money” but said later congress is considering “some extra special issues” right now that demand the 12th Congressional District have representation. Holding a special election separate from the primary would like cost the state at least several hundred thousand dollars.
Rendell has 10 days to declare a vacancy and decide when to hold a special election, said a spokesman for the Department of State. The special election then has to be at least 60 days later.
A special election, although it can be held on the same day, is not the same as the primary. Candidates theoretically might have their names on two separate ballots on May 18 — one for the primary, the next for the special election.
If the special election is held before May 18, the winning candidate must have his or her name on the primary ballot if they want to seek re-election, meaning they would be forced to campaign for and win two elections within months of each other.
Party rules for Democrats and Republicans will determine how the special election candidate is selected. For Republicans, each county committee in the district will be assigned a certain number of conferees to send to the selection meeting. The conferees will vote to decide who becomes the party’s candidate.
For Democrats, the county committees in the 12th Districts will meet to recommend a candidate to the state party’s 50-member executive committee. The executive committee, comprising members from across Pennsylvania, will decide whether to endorse a candidate.
The 12th District is spread across southwest Pennsylvania, including parts of Greene, Fayette, Allegheny, Cambria, Washington, Armstrong, Somerset, Westmoreland and Indiana counties.
http://www.politicspa.com/politicspa-rendell-undecided-when-to-hold-special-election/6319/
Tribune Review
Support builds for Murtha's wife taking seat
By Salena Zito
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, February 12, 2010
Last updated: 8:41 am
Gov. Ed Rendell will decide when to conduct a special election for Murtha's seat. He told reporters he is leaning toward the May 18 primary to keep costs down.
The state Democratic and Republican parties each would choose a nominee. Independent candidates also could enter the race.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_666804.html
Meanwhile
Murtha's death sparks inquiry
By Mike Wereschagin
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, February 12, 2010
A congressman in line to take over the late U.S. Rep. John Murtha's subcommittee chairmanship said he plans to look into how Bethesda Naval Medical Center handled the operation that preceded Murtha's death.
U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Washington, said the inquiry likely won't rise to the level of a congressional hearing, but he and other senior legislators in both parties want to know why Murtha died after undergoing a routine gallbladder removal. Murtha died Monday from complications arising from the surgery. U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, D-Philadelphia, said Murtha's large intestine was damaged during the procedure.
"This is normally a pretty routine operation. What I want to know is, what went wrong? Are there problems (at Bethesda)? Do we need to do anything to help?" said Dicks, who is next in line to assume Murtha's longtime chairmanship of the powerful Defense Appropriations subcommittee.
Dicks plans to speak with the commanding officer at Bethesda as well as Navy officials on Capitol Hill. Top Republicans on the committee, including ranking member Bill Young of Florida, support the inquiry, Dicks said.
A Bethesda spokeswoman could not be reached for comment.
"This is not a witch hunt. We're simply trying to do our job over here. I have no preconceived conclusions, though there is no question about the fact that there was a mistake made," Dicks said.
Murtha's laparoscopic surgery, where a surgeon using a video camera removes the gallbladder through small incisions, is among the most common operations in the country. Murtha underwent the surgery Jan. 28 and went home that day. He was admitted to Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington on Feb. 1.
Fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of people who undergo the surgery die, according to the American College of Surgeons.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_666806.html
Thursday, February 11, 2010
New Way Do Climate Report How About Highway?
Don't have a scientific conclusion to prove. Let the evidence/science lead you to the conclusion. And geesh, we're not rocket or climate scientists, but when it's been shown one area of a report is filled with inaccuracies and errors, why should we trust another area of a report that's claimed to be 'error' free?
Net the Truth Online
Net the Truth Online
WASHINGTON – A steady drip of unsettling errors is exposing what scientists are calling "the weaker link" in the Nobel Peace Prize-winning series of international reports on global warming.
The flaws — and the erosion they've caused in public confidence — have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done. A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of a prestigious scientific journal comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_report_woes
Rand Paul Foregoing Principles for Base Republican Support?
Update March 1, 2010
Note Bill Johnson remarks about Rand Paul's responses in Wall Street Journal interview. Both seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.
Is it possible this stance by Rand Paul was just becoming known to Palin after her endorsement and during the Chris Wallace interview wherein she said she didn't agree with Rand Paul on every single issue?
Net the Truth Online
Sarah Palin's political support and financial support of two very different Republican candidates for high office, Gov. Rick Perry and Rand Paul, has raised a key question pertaining to Palin's basic political tenets.
Shouldn't detailed questions be put to Rand Paul, seeking the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in Kentucky, about his acceptance of Sarah Palin's support?
And if it's true Rand Paul sought the support of Sarah Palin (made overtures) versus Palin out of the blue offering political support and a big campaign contribution, how does Rand Paul justify many of Palin's comments including her lack of knowledge about the duties of a Vice President?
Further questions should be asked of Rand Paul about his positions in relation to Sarah Palin's recent comments during a Chris Wallace interview session.
So according to Sarah Palin it would be beneficial to Obama's chances of winning in 2012 if he were to decide to declare war on Iran?
What are Rand Paul's thoughts on her misstatement - a President does not declare war, Congress does. And what are Rand Paul's inclinations about a declaration of war (by Congress as he knows) on Iran? Is he in agreement with Palin on that issue?
Further, Palin rightly notes we have a representative form of government, but wrong again, buzzers should be going off, we are not a "democracy."
How can Rand Paul justify making those "overtures" to Sarah Palin when she is clearly unfamiliar with the basic foundation of our government as a "republic" - if you can keep it - something that Rand Paul had to have learned correctly and all the reasons why while growing up with his father, Ron Paul?
And a host of questions should be put to Rand Paul on differences on key issues with his own Libertarian/Republican father, the long independent embraced Ron Paul, the one who always references our nation as a "republic," correctly so.
What is Rand Paul's position in light of Sarah Palin's offering enhancing troop presence in Afghanistan was the way President Obama should proceed.
According to the American Conservative Magazine article, Rand Paul has a stated difference of opinion from his father's on the issue of military tribunals for terrorists.
clip
In response to the question posed in the above subtext to the headline, wouldn't it be imperative to ask:
Who is Rand Paul? And what does he really stand for? Turns out the first question has been asked.
Sad to think as well, Rand Paul is named after the founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand.
How would he differ with Rand?
Finally, is Rand Paul foregoing core libertarian principles for support from a base of Republicans one faction or another, neo-cons or anti-Establishment, in order to slip into the office of United States Senator from Kentucky?
Net the Truth Online
clips
Ron Paul vs Sarah Palin for the Soul of the Tea Parties Jane Hamsher
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/will-palin-and-the-neocon_b_456824.html
Glenn Beck won't endorse Medina - questions the candidate for Gov. of Texas about being a "9/11 truther."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j2Ov6u9e38
Note Bill Johnson remarks about Rand Paul's responses in Wall Street Journal interview. Both seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.
Bill Johnson: I disagree with the Pauls on many issues. First, I do not agree with their pro-choice for states abortion position outlined in the ‘Sanctity of Life act’. Establishing personhood for the unborn and then denying them federal protection is even worse than Judge Blackmun's (the author of Roe vs. Wade). Second, I do not support the Paul's position in support of the closing of Guantanamo Bay and bringing the prisoners to the U.S. for trial...
...Bill Johnson: Rand Paul claims to be a Constitutional Conservative. He is not. He is a Libertarian. An honest assessment of his statements and actions during the past two decades bears this out. The most obvious example is that he denies equal protection to all unborn children under the 14th Amendment.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10109&posts=1&start=1
Is it possible this stance by Rand Paul was just becoming known to Palin after her endorsement and during the Chris Wallace interview wherein she said she didn't agree with Rand Paul on every single issue?
Net the Truth Online
Sarah Palin's political support and financial support of two very different Republican candidates for high office, Gov. Rick Perry and Rand Paul, has raised a key question pertaining to Palin's basic political tenets.
Palin's people: Tea Party activists rally around champion of the Right
By Mail Foreign Service Last updated at 5:11 PM on 06th February 2010
Comment section
Palin has always touted against big government. Her support for Rick Perry should be a red flag to the country. Palin is not what the Tea Party movement is about and I can't believe they asked her to speak. This is proof that the movement of the people has been hijacked. How can she support Rick Perry AND Rand Paul? That is complete contradiction and speaks volumes of who she really is. What a hypocrite and shill !!! Such a good little politician....
- Angela, Tulsa, 07/2/2010 03:31
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1249002/Sarah-Palin-Tea-party-activists-gather-hail-champion-national-gathering.html#ixzz0fF0Lurse
Shouldn't detailed questions be put to Rand Paul, seeking the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in Kentucky, about his acceptance of Sarah Palin's support?
And if it's true Rand Paul sought the support of Sarah Palin (made overtures) versus Palin out of the blue offering political support and a big campaign contribution, how does Rand Paul justify many of Palin's comments including her lack of knowledge about the duties of a Vice President?
Rand Paul Revolution
Can a libertarian ride Tea Party disaffection to victory in a Republican primary?
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
...Still, Paul readily admits he gets it from both sides. The Grayson campaign has accused Paul of flip-flopping on Guantanamo, first supporting the administration’s plans to close it, then releasing a statement in November saying, “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil.” Unlike his father, Paul says he supports trying suspected terrorists in military courts—he does not believe foreign detainees are constitutionally protected—but he would “ultimately close [Gitmo] down.”
That caused a rumble among libertarians who believed that Paul was selling out. They might also have a problem with his views on abortion. He believes it is a states’ rights issue, but told TAC that he would support a federal ban on abortion if it came up in Congress, which would put him in the good graces of the conservative Republican electorate in Kentucky.
And while his recent endorsement from Steve Forbes might pass muster with libertarians, it might raise their eyebrows that Paul admitted to “making overtures” to Sarah Palin for help campaigning in the state. (This probably makes sense since Paul estimates that 75 percent of his current base “didn’t support Ron Paul” in 2008.)
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00010/
Further questions should be asked of Rand Paul about his positions in relation to Sarah Palin's recent comments during a Chris Wallace interview session.
Banging the War Drums, playing Pipes, Sarah Palin calls the Wrong Tune
By Marsha B. Cohen
In the Fox News interview, Wallace asked Palin if she thinks Obama can be re-elected in 2012. Palin responded, "I got this from reading one of Buchanan's columns the other day:
Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided to come out and do whatever he can to support Israel, which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years...
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1089.html
Fox News Sunday Interview With Sarah Palin
...WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?
PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.
But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --
WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.
PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --
WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --
PALIN: Then he's not going to win.
WALLACE: Not going to win?
PALIN: He's not going to win. If he continues on the path that he has American on today -- and here's the deal -- that's what a lot of Americans are telling him today and he's not listening. Instead he's telling everybody else, listen up and I'll tell you the way it is.
Well, we have a representative form of government in our democracy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-sarah-palin/
So according to Sarah Palin it would be beneficial to Obama's chances of winning in 2012 if he were to decide to declare war on Iran?
What are Rand Paul's thoughts on her misstatement - a President does not declare war, Congress does. And what are Rand Paul's inclinations about a declaration of war (by Congress as he knows) on Iran? Is he in agreement with Palin on that issue?
Further, Palin rightly notes we have a representative form of government, but wrong again, buzzers should be going off, we are not a "democracy."
How can Rand Paul justify making those "overtures" to Sarah Palin when she is clearly unfamiliar with the basic foundation of our government as a "republic" - if you can keep it - something that Rand Paul had to have learned correctly and all the reasons why while growing up with his father, Ron Paul?
And a host of questions should be put to Rand Paul on differences on key issues with his own Libertarian/Republican father, the long independent embraced Ron Paul, the one who always references our nation as a "republic," correctly so.
What is Rand Paul's position in light of Sarah Palin's offering enhancing troop presence in Afghanistan was the way President Obama should proceed.
Rand Paul:
...On the issue of national defense and terrorism, I’ll give a brief summary of what I believe:
On 9/11/2001, nineteen terrorists attacked us aboard commercial airliners. I’ll never forget coming out of an eye surgery and into a patient’s hospital room to see the attacks on television. I’ve never doubted who attacked us and have never wavered in calling for a response. In fact, I would have demanded a vote on Declaration of War with Afghanistan and voted for it. Furthermore, I think we made a mistake by waiting one and one half months to attack the terrorist bases.
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/
Rand Paul supports war in Afghanistan?
Submitted by amerianna on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 22:11.
"And if I had been in the US senate I would have stopped them and said no more, we will have a vote. We will declare war with Afghanistan. We will declare war with Iraq. I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR A DECLARATION OF WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN but I would have voted against a declaration of war with Iraq. But I would have made them vote. And that's the problem, they no longer pay attention to the rules."
~ Rand Paul
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/102373
According to the American Conservative Magazine article, Rand Paul has a stated difference of opinion from his father's on the issue of military tribunals for terrorists.
clip
March 1, 2010 Issue American Conservative
Rand Paul Revolution
Can a libertarian ride Tea Party disaffection to victory in a Republican primary?
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
...Still, Paul readily admits he gets it from both sides. The Grayson campaign has accused Paul of flip-flopping on Guantanamo, first supporting the administration’s plans to close it, then releasing a statement in November saying, “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil.” Unlike his father, Paul says he supports trying suspected terrorists in military courts—he does not believe foreign detainees are constitutionally protected—but he would “ultimately close [Gitmo] down.”
That caused a rumble among libertarians who believed that Paul was selling out. They might also have a problem with his views on abortion. He believes it is a states’ rights issue, but told TAC that he would support a federal ban on abortion if it came up in Congress, which would put him in the good graces of the conservative Republican electorate in Kentucky.
And while his recent endorsement from Steve Forbes might pass muster with libertarians, it might raise their eyebrows that Paul admitted to “making overtures” to Sarah Palin for help campaigning in the state. (This probably makes sense since Paul estimates that 75 percent of his current base “didn’t support Ron Paul” in 2008.)
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00010/
In response to the question posed in the above subtext to the headline, wouldn't it be imperative to ask:
Who is Rand Paul? And what does he really stand for? Turns out the first question has been asked.
Rand Paul responds to Dyche CJ column
by Joe Arnold
Posted on February 10, 2010 at 4:11 PM
After a recent Courier-Journal column by Kentucky conservative John David Dyche wondered aloud "Who is Rand Paul?" the U.S. Senate candidate has written a response to Dyche's questions, but campaign manager David Adams says the newspaper is refusing to print it.
The Paul campaign has provided me a copy of Rand Paul's response, which I have reprinted as provided at the end of this entry.
For readers to be able to more easily keep track of the Q & A, I have reprinted each of Dyche's questions below, with the answer that seems to best correspond with each question. In several instances, Paul does not directly answer the question. I have also included follow up questions that I will forward to the Paul campaign for clarification. You can, however, watch and read his answers to my questions in an interview conducted with Rand Paul and his father, Ron-Paul, in late January.
RAND PAUL RESPONSE TO JOHN DAVID DYCHE COLUMN FULL TEXT:
http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/political-blog/Rand-Paul-responds-to-Dyche-CJ-column-84046827.html
Sad to think as well, Rand Paul is named after the founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand.
How would he differ with Rand?
Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/war.html
Finally, is Rand Paul foregoing core libertarian principles for support from a base of Republicans one faction or another, neo-cons or anti-Establishment, in order to slip into the office of United States Senator from Kentucky?
Net the Truth Online
clips
March 1, 2010 Issue American Conservative Magazine
Rand Paul Revolution
Can a libertarian ride Tea Party disaffection to victory in a Republican primary?
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
...It’s important to understand who these voters are. Rand Paul seems to know, having worked on the periphery of Kentucky politics for nearly two decades. On one hand, he advances a libertarian intellectual framework, nurtured in a household where Hayek, Ayn Rand, and von Mises were familiar names. His service on his dad’s campaign wasn’t just the indulgence of a dutiful son, he brought the energy of an activist. (Post-campaign, the Paul movement has become institutionalized as the Campaign for Liberty, which at one point raised over $6 million in one day from individual donations.) Rand speaks of an “American rabble” that is “bereaved at the loss of liberty,” that “wants an end to the imperial presidency” and empire-building abroad, and that aims to strip the federal budget down to its constitutionally enumerated functions.
But like his father, Rand Paul is a Republican—since 1976, he says—and he knows his chances in the May primary partly depend on how well he convinces county chairs and local Republicans that he identifies with their issues and mores. He has to, for Kentucky has closed primaries. Only registered Republicans can vote on May 18, and party switchers had to re-register by Jan. 1. Registered independents and Democrats who might be inclined to support Paul as the primary approaches are already too late.
“In order to win, I think he needs to get to know the party activists and the people who have been involved in the party politics for a long time because those are the people who are going to vote,” says Nathan Gonzales of the Washington-based Rothenberg Political Report, an established political handicapper. If not, “I don’t think he is going to bring in enough new Republican voters to win.”
Therein lies the double-bind for Rand Paul, and it may very well highlight the internecine fissures within the GOP—within conservatism itself—like no other election this year. First, Paul has to work the system he and the burgeoning national base of anti-government rabble-rousers behind him have openly eschewed. But then, he must deal with competing ideological factions within his base—the loyal libertarians who brought his dad to national prominence and the Tea Partiers who don’t naturally abide libertarian positions on war and civil liberties. On top of it all, Paul will have to live down criticism for riding his dad’s coattails and for being an “outsider” who has raised most of his campaign funds—more than $1.6 million—from outside Kentucky.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00010/
Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and the Kentucky Senate Race
February 08, 2010 10:41 AM
ABC News’ Teddy Davis reports:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) recently endorsed Rand Paul, the son of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in his bid to be the Republican Senate nominee from Kentucky.
Over the weekend, during her interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Palin was asked to defend Rand Paul’s positions on closing Guantanamo, repealing the Patriot Act, against federal regulation of marriage, and ending federal regulation of drug laws.
Palin, who mistakenly referred to Rand Paul as Ron Paul, defended her candidate as a federalist.
She then seemed to indicate that she did not see eye to eye with him on everything by adding that “nobody’s ever going to find a perfect candidate.”
Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the Republican running against Rand Paul in the GOP Senate primary, has now issued this press release saying: “Sarah Palin Refuses to Defend Ron and Rand Paul’s Dangerous Positions.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/sarah-palin-ron-paul-and-the-kentucky-senate-race.html
Rand responds to attacks
Published on 11 February 2010 by David Adams in General News
0 Rand Paul wrote the following response to a recently published newspaper column. The newspaper refused to print this response:
John David Dyche recently wrote an essay in the Louisville Courier Journal outlining my opponent’s mischaracterizations, innuendo, and outright lies about my positions. I think the truth would be better served by discussing my actual positions on the issues rather than my opponent’s distortions. While I will speak to many of my positions here, I invite you to visit my website randpaul2010.com which lists many issues in great detail.
But to the accusations let us go:
...
On the issue of national defense and terrorism, I’ll give a brief summary of what I believe:
On 9/11/2001, nineteen terrorists attacked us aboard commercial airliners. I’ll never forget coming out of an eye surgery and into a patient’s hospital room to see the attacks on television. I’ve never doubted who attacked us and have never wavered in calling for a response. In fact, I would have demanded a vote on Declaration of War with Afghanistan and voted for it. Furthermore, I think we made a mistake by waiting one and one half months to attack the terrorist bases.
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/
Sarah Palin and Rand Paul are having a Tea Party
by Ryan Jaroncyk
Thu, Feb 04th 2010
Long before the Tea Party movement sprang up in the early days of President Obama, the liberty movement was catching fire. Dedicated to a pro-constitution, fiscally conservative, and anti-war GOP presidential candidate, the liberty movement barnstormed the nation with an explosion of grassroots enthusiasm. When Texas Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul, challenged the GOP establishment in 2007-2008, tens of thousands of supporters organized record breaking, one-day "money bombs", catchy YouTube videos, massive sign waving events, and even a blimp, without any assistance from special interests, party elites, or network celebrities.
Then, in early 2009, a few weeks after Obama's inauguration, the Tea Party movement began to show its head, enflamed by the bailouts and record government spending. Little did many people realize, however, that the "Tea Party" concept originated in December 2007, when over 58,000 grassroots supporters donated a one-day record of $6 million to Dr. Paul's presidential campaign on the anniversary of the original 1773 Boston Tea Party.
As the Tea Party began to slowly emerge, the "Liberty movement" was already in full swing. Dr. Paul had inspired a whole slate of grassroots candidates to launch campaigns for the 2010 elections. Candidates such Dr. Rand Paul (his son), Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh, RJ Harris, John Dennis, Jake Towne, and Debra Medina began gearing up to run for various offices. And as the Tea Party rallies began to spread throughout the nation in 2009, many of these candidates were invited to give speeches and make appearances at Tea Party events.
But, as the Tea Party movement began to unfold, a troubling phenomenon started to emerge. Fox News, GOP elites, network personalities, and powerful special interests began to slowly, but insidiously take the reins. Seeing their opportunity, GOP strategists began to exploit the budding grassroots movement for their own political gain. Suddenly, the movement became obsessed with excorciating the Democrats and President Obama, when, in fact, the "shredding of the Consitution" by President Bush and a largely Republican Congress is what inspired the earliest tea party supporters in 2007 & 2008. As a result, disaffected Democrats and open-minded Independents strongly rejected the Tea Party's partisan invective.
Now, the Tea Party movement is battling for its soul. With $100,000 payments to Sarah Palin, $500 tickets to attend a "grassroots" convention, and Republican strategists such as Sal Russo pulling the strings behind the scenes, the Tea Party movement is fighting the onslaught of a full-fledged, GOP establishment hijacking.
But, strangely enough, so is the Liberty movement.
Recently, Dr. Rand Paul, who is dominating the polls in the US Senate race in Kentucky, received an official endorsement from Sarah Palin. Months earlier, he had stated that his campaign was "making overtures" to gain her support. Since the endorsement, Rand has showered Palin with glowing praise, even though some feel their economic and foreign policy views significantly differ in certain areas.
http://caivn.org/article/2010/02/04/sarah-palin-and-rand-paul-are-having-tea-party
Ron Paul vs Sarah Palin for the Soul of the Tea Parties Jane Hamsher
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/will-palin-and-the-neocon_b_456824.html
Glenn Beck won't endorse Medina - questions the candidate for Gov. of Texas about being a "9/11 truther."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j2Ov6u9e38
Unprecedented Record Snowfalls Won't Crush Global Warmers
They press on. MSNBC reporters like Maria Bartiromo go to the extent of reporting the record snowfalls then noting in an aside this doesn't mean global warming of the planet caused by man is not occurring.
Ed Shultz said on his program it's climate change and it's slow and steady little by little global warming.
Very enjoyable watching the display of global warming theorists warm out of this one.
Net the Truth Online
Record snowfalls due to cold front not global warming
http://live.radioamerica.org/loudwater/player.pl?upload=1746&name=wnd
More snow record cold = global warming
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/02/10/more-snow-record-cold-global-warming-to-msnbc-left-wing-nut-job-warmers/
MSNBC Dylan Ratigan
comments
Ed Shultz said on his program it's climate change and it's slow and steady little by little global warming.
Very enjoyable watching the display of global warming theorists warm out of this one.
Net the Truth Online
Record snowfalls due to cold front not global warming
http://live.radioamerica.org/loudwater/player.pl?upload=1746&name=wnd
More snow record cold = global warming
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/02/10/more-snow-record-cold-global-warming-to-msnbc-left-wing-nut-job-warmers/
MSNBC Dylan Ratigan
comments
Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/science/earth/11climate.html
The Ed Show Psycho Talk: Republicans claim there is no global warming because of the snow storms
Republicans and Fox News are at it again.
Did you miss MSNBC's The Ed Show? You can watch it right here!
Or watch highlights from the Wednesday, February 10, 2010 Show.
http://www.bigeddieradio.com/
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Memories Erased Tea Party Palin Supporters?
Update
We're beginning to wonder if somehow the organizers and attendees of the National Tea Party Convention have had their memories erased in some sci-fi experimental experiment?
How could they forget Sarah Palin's non-answer to Charles Gibson's question:
Asked of the Vice Presidential candidate, "what is your interpretation of the Bush Doctrine?" Palin responded hesitantly but confidently:
"The Bush Doctrine. His world view."
His world-view? What kind of an answer is that? It isn't one. It's so general as to be unacceptable as an answer on a history quiz.
She 'elaborates' on her answer, but the elaboration is as lacking in detail as to deserve an F minus if it were her answer on a history quiz.
And even if Palin isn't quite up to par on history from say 50 years back, though she should be, or 200 years back, though she should be, she should have been par excellence on recent history regarding the President of the United States and a President who is a member of her own political party of choice.
Likely a fifth-grader could have answered the question at least to the extent of reciting the words: pre-emptive strike or simply pre-emption!
Why are many in the so-called Tea Party movement taken with Sarah Palin when she could not answer another simple question actually asked of her twice at different times?
What is the job of a Vice President? What does a VP of the USA do?
Seriously, did the VP candidate never pick up the single explanatory document, the US Constitution, and read through it?
Why would anyone serious about Constitutional issues no matter who is governing accordingly give Palin a second glance as a serious contender for any high office?
Puzzling.
But Palin's use of notes on her hand during her speech at the Tea Party Convention, though treated humorously, has to show a side of her thought processes that cannot possibly be trusted.
Dumb as dirt might be too kind?
The maybe wants to be President if the country needs her and it is A OK for her family and the country actually crossed out a word before cuts - budget - and inserted below it another word - tax.
What, she didn't have time to rub off the word, use a wet tissue, erase it, and write in tax? Wasn't the magic marker ink the type that's erasable?
Palin didn't make any live appearances afterwards either, did she? Fox News didn't have her on cam to explain the notes, did they? Cause a day later the words were still on her hand cause she used a really really good permanent magic marker?
If the notes show a twist of the mind which makes one wonder not only how does she think, but question does she think, her interview with Chris Wallace should leave little doubt.
The New American Magazine has an exemplary piece on the matter.
Who can ever give Sarah Palin another and yet another and yet another benefit of the doubt on her suitability or rather unsuitability to be President of the United States when she believes a President not only should declare war (on Iran), but actually CAN decide to declare war (on Iran)?
Congress declares war, not the President of the United States.
Her speech to the Tea Party Convention also contains the chilling get-down-with-the-folks train of thought she has displayed over and over again which makes us certain she is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief with the potential to send our military anywhere in the world.
"...down here... up in Alaska...
We can hear it now, over there... you know up in Russia... down there in Cuba... across the way and over there... left no right... bombs away...
Net the Truth Online
Palin's hand notes
Poll reads Palin's palm: no chance in 2012; 71% of Americans don't think she's qualified to be prez
BY Michael Mcauliff
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Thursday, February 11th 2010, 10:21
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/11/2010-02-11_poll_reads_palins_palm_no_chance_in_2012_71_of_americans_dont_think_shes_qualifi.html#ixzz0fLYS9e1Y
We're beginning to wonder if somehow the organizers and attendees of the National Tea Party Convention have had their memories erased in some sci-fi experimental experiment?
How could they forget Sarah Palin's non-answer to Charles Gibson's question:
Asked of the Vice Presidential candidate, "what is your interpretation of the Bush Doctrine?" Palin responded hesitantly but confidently:
"The Bush Doctrine. His world view."
His world-view? What kind of an answer is that? It isn't one. It's so general as to be unacceptable as an answer on a history quiz.
She 'elaborates' on her answer, but the elaboration is as lacking in detail as to deserve an F minus if it were her answer on a history quiz.
And even if Palin isn't quite up to par on history from say 50 years back, though she should be, or 200 years back, though she should be, she should have been par excellence on recent history regarding the President of the United States and a President who is a member of her own political party of choice.
Likely a fifth-grader could have answered the question at least to the extent of reciting the words: pre-emptive strike or simply pre-emption!
Why are many in the so-called Tea Party movement taken with Sarah Palin when she could not answer another simple question actually asked of her twice at different times?
What is the job of a Vice President? What does a VP of the USA do?
Seriously, did the VP candidate never pick up the single explanatory document, the US Constitution, and read through it?
Why would anyone serious about Constitutional issues no matter who is governing accordingly give Palin a second glance as a serious contender for any high office?
Puzzling.
But Palin's use of notes on her hand during her speech at the Tea Party Convention, though treated humorously, has to show a side of her thought processes that cannot possibly be trusted.
Dumb as dirt might be too kind?
The maybe wants to be President if the country needs her and it is A OK for her family and the country actually crossed out a word before cuts - budget - and inserted below it another word - tax.
What, she didn't have time to rub off the word, use a wet tissue, erase it, and write in tax? Wasn't the magic marker ink the type that's erasable?
Palin didn't make any live appearances afterwards either, did she? Fox News didn't have her on cam to explain the notes, did they? Cause a day later the words were still on her hand cause she used a really really good permanent magic marker?
If the notes show a twist of the mind which makes one wonder not only how does she think, but question does she think, her interview with Chris Wallace should leave little doubt.
Banging the War Drums, playing Pipes, Sarah Palin calls the Wrong Tune
By Marsha B. Cohen
In the Fox News interview, Wallace asked Palin if she thinks Obama can be re-elected in 2012. Palin responded, "I got this from reading one of Buchanan's columns the other day:
Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided to come out and do whatever he can to support Israel, which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years...
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1089.html
The New American Magazine has an exemplary piece on the matter.
Fox News Sunday Interview With Sarah Palin
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/07/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-sarah-palin/
Who can ever give Sarah Palin another and yet another and yet another benefit of the doubt on her suitability or rather unsuitability to be President of the United States when she believes a President not only should declare war (on Iran), but actually CAN decide to declare war (on Iran)?
Congress declares war, not the President of the United States.
Her speech to the Tea Party Convention also contains the chilling get-down-with-the-folks train of thought she has displayed over and over again which makes us certain she is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief with the potential to send our military anywhere in the world.
Sarah Palin Keynote Speech
Very good to be here in Tennessee, the Volunteer State. It’s the home of good country music and good southern barbeque, and…Great to be at the Tea Party Convention. I guess down here, that’s some southern sweet tea. And you know,up in Alaska, we have a smaller version of Tea Party up there, and we call it ice tea...
http://themoderatevoice.com/62060/sarah-palins-keynote-speech-at-national-tea-party-convention/
"...down here... up in Alaska...
We can hear it now, over there... you know up in Russia... down there in Cuba... across the way and over there... left no right... bombs away...
Net the Truth Online
Post URL: Sarah Palin And The Bush Doctrine (Video Interview Included)
"What is your interpretation of the Bush Doctrine?
http://brokencontrollers.com/forums/sarah-palin-and-the-bush-doctrine-video-interview-included-t24567.php
The Palin Interview by James Fallows
12 Sep 2008 09:01 am
It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin's answer to the "Bush Doctrine" question -- the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China -- implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.
Not the mundane job of vice president, of course, which many people could handle. Rather the job of potential Commander in Chief and most powerful individual on earth.
The spelling-out is lengthy, but I've hidden most of it below the jump.
Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php
Palin's ABC Interview: Stumped On Bush Doctrine, Seems To Contradict McCain On Pakistan (VIDEO)
digg Huffpost - Palin's ABC Interview: Stumped On Bush Doctrine, Seems To Contradict McCain On Pakistan (VIDEO) stumble reddit del.ico.us The Huffington Post | Seth Colter Walls and Sam Stein
First Posted: 09-11-08 07:13 PM | Updated: 10-12-08 05:12 AM
In her first major interview as the Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was stumped when asked about the so-called "Bush Doctrine," unable to answer whether she agreed with the six-year-old U.S. policy of military preemption.
Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson whether she supported the Bush Doctrine, Palin stared blankly for a moment before turning the question back on Gibson. "In what respect?"
The ABC anchor responded, "Well, what do you interpret it to be?" clearly testing her knowledge of the policy that has been in place since September 2002, before the Iraq war.
Palin couldn't say, offering an answer that didn't even mention preemption. "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent in destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made, and with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/palins-abc-interview-stum_n_125818.html
Palin's hand notes
Sarah Palin Wrote Notes On Her Hand For Tea Party Speech
Read more: Sarah Palin Wrote Notes On Her Hand For Tea Party Speech -- Daily Intel http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/sarah_palin_uses_cheats_her_wa.html#ixzz0fAtEO6b6
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/sarah_palin_uses_cheats_her_wa.html
The Tea-Party Split
Posted by Anthony Gregory on 02/10/10 1:08 PM
See Jane Hamsher on the tension between libertarian, non-interventionist and traditional America First small-government conservatives that make up much of the grassroots Tea Party movement, and the socially conservative pro-war, pro-corporatism neocon wing of the movement, typified by the GOP establishment...
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=32436
Ron Paul vs Sarah Palin for the Soul of the Tea Party Movement
Jane Hamsher
There's trouble brewing between the Ron Paul libertarians who staged the the first modern tea party in 2007 by dumping tea into Boston Harbor, and the neocon war hawks led by Sarah Palin who are furiously trying to hijack their message.
After I appeared on MSNBC talking about Sarah Palin's appearance at the Nashville tea party convention, several libertarians told me they were unhappy with the exchange.
I said that Sarah Palin's hawkish message on Iran was oddly out of place in a group whose roots belong to the Ron Paul libertarians, particularly as the anti-interventionist Rand Paul is looking strong in the Kentucky Senate Senate race -- and Palin just endorsed him. The woman who appeared with me representing the tea partiers disagreed with that premise, and claimed she was very much an interventionist.
My libertarian friends couldn't imagine what she was doing on TV representing the tea parties in the first place, and thought it was a sad day when the opposition stated their position more fairly than their supposed allies.
But it underscores a rift between the anti-tax, pro-civil rights libertarians who started the tea parties and the corporatist neocon grifters of the GOP who are now trying to swoop in and capitalize on all of the hype. And in the irony of ironies, tea party-identified candidates are now trying to oust Ron Paul from his Texas House seat.
Paul appeared on Rachel Maddow last night to speak about it. Rachel asked him about his relationship to the tea parties, and he said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/will-palin-and-the-neocon_b_456824.html
After the Convention: The Long Row to Hoe for the Tea Party Movement |
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 14:06
Over 1,000 people turned up to listen to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin deliver the keynote address at the first annual Tea Party Convention. Much has been written about Palin’s speech and the crib notes scribbled on her palm, but in between the lines of her rally cry, there was much more than meets the palm.
First, Sarah Palin is no conservative; she is a neo-conservative. In Greek, the prefix “neo-“ translates as “new,” but in the case of Sarah Palin and her ilk, it translates as “not.” In an interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace, Palin slinked out of her “Tea Party” mask and revealed the warmongering neo-con underneath. “Say he [President Obama] decided to declare war on Iran … which I would like him to do,” Palin responded to a question about her opinion of ways President Obama could improve his chances for reelection in 2012.
True conservatives are constitutionalists and, as such, they know that no President, including President Palin, can declare war; declaring war is the exclusive province of the Congress (see Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution). That’s the first problem with Palin’s remarks.
Second, non-prefixed conservatives are opposed to the use of our armed forces as a bootstrap for empire. America is a Republic and the elected representatives of the people have no authority to spend the blood and treasure of Americans in furtherance of a Pax Americana, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, and certainly not in Iran. Conservatives decry the use of American armed forces in neither the exporting of “democracy” (which is not, incidentally, the type of government established by our Constitution) nor the toppling of regimes.
Third, constitutionalists have one principal aim: re-shackle a runaway government by restoring adherence to the timeless principles of our sacred Constitution. Conservatives demonstrate true patriotism when they demand that their leaders conform in all matters to the constitutional barriers placed around their spheres of power. No personality, regardless of appeal or appearance, should detract committed constitutionalists from their zealous retrenchment of a government that has careened wildly off the rails.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2913-after-the-convention-the-long-row-to-hoe-for-the-tea-party-movement
A Warning to the Tea Party Nation
Chuck Baldwin
...But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans...
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2010/cbarchive_20100212.html
Sarah Palin and Rand Paul are having a Tea Party
Submitted by legalizeliberty on Fri, 02/05/2010
reference site
http://caivn.org/article/2010/02/04/sarah-palin-and-rand-paul-are-having-tea-party
As the Tea Party began to slowly emerge, the "Liberty movement" was already in full swing. Dr. Paul had inspired a whole slate of grassroots candidates to launch campaigns for the 2010 elections. Candidates such Dr. Rand Paul (his son), Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh, RJ Harris, Jake Towne, and Debra Medina began gearing up to run for various offices. And as the Tea Party rallies began to spread throughout the nation in 2009, many of these candidates were invited to give speeches and make appearances at Tea Party events.
But, as the Tea Party movement began to unfold, a troubling phenomenon started to emerge. Fox News, GOP elites, network personalities, and powerful special interests began to slowly, but insidiously take the reins. Seeing their opportunity, GOP strategists began to exploit the budding grassroots movement for their own political gain. Suddenly, the movement became obsessed with excorciating the Democrats and President Obama, when, in fact, the "shredding of the Consitution" by President Bush and a largely Republican Congress is what inspired the earliest tea party supporters in 2007 & 2008. As a result, disaffected Democrats and open-minded Independents strongly rejected the Tea Party's partisan invective.
Now, the Tea Party movement is battling for its soul. With $100,000 payments to Sarah Palin, $500 tickets to attend a "grassroots" convention, and Republican strategists such as Sal Russo pulling the strings behind the scenes, the Tea Party movement is fighting the onslaught of a full-fledged, GOP establishment hijacking.
continue reading at the link -
http://dailypaul.com/node/124087
http://caivn.org/article/2010/02/04/sarah-palin-and-rand-paul-are-having-tea-party
Ron Paul vs Sarah Palin for the Soul of the Tea Parties.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/will-palin-and-the-neocon_b_456824.html
Republican Hand Unnecessary for Democrat Healthcare Mandate
All this talk about bi-partisanship by President Barack Obama is nothing less than a smoke-screen.
What's to cover up?
The health care insurance mandate, that's what.
Independents do not want the government to mandate the purchase of anything for themselves, including health care insurance.
Few would dispute the need for portability, access to competitive pricing if necessary across state lines, but these are not to be considered by Democrats and they still want the mandate.
The mandate is nothing less than a backroom deal to some day slip in what the staunch Democrats really want - government run programs to replace the private sector health care eventually.
The Democrats have the majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.
So the Republicans in the Senate can filibuster for months. The Democrats can alter whatever rules they adopted to proceed and mount a vote of Democrats to pass whatever they want with a 51 Senate vote majority. They have 59 votes among Democrats.
Net the Truth Online
What's to cover up?
The health care insurance mandate, that's what.
Independents do not want the government to mandate the purchase of anything for themselves, including health care insurance.
Few would dispute the need for portability, access to competitive pricing if necessary across state lines, but these are not to be considered by Democrats and they still want the mandate.
The mandate is nothing less than a backroom deal to some day slip in what the staunch Democrats really want - government run programs to replace the private sector health care eventually.
The Democrats have the majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.
So the Republicans in the Senate can filibuster for months. The Democrats can alter whatever rules they adopted to proceed and mount a vote of Democrats to pass whatever they want with a 51 Senate vote majority. They have 59 votes among Democrats.
Net the Truth Online
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Tea Party National Not in the Bag Yet
Tea Party National roots spreading, yet to be seen if it will take hold on the national level.
If the tea party organizers didn't want to hear what Joseph Farah, founder/publisher of World Net Daily had to say regarding the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate, the tea party organizers would not have invited Farah as a speaker.
We've covered the issue previously and believe WND's coverage has lacked the benefit of material we've found but nonetheless we believe in freedom of speech as a guaranteed right as all other rights.
Even if the speech is not exactly supportable.
What's interesting about Farah's comments to Breitbart:
"I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?" Farah had gotten irritated. "That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth."
We agree with that to some extent. Journalism should ask questions in an effort to seek truth, no matter what the truth shows.
but oftentimes, some issue or some factuality must be proven, especially when entire careers are fairly often built on fallacies... Michael Moore and Al Gore come to mind
Some things do need to be proven by journalists as they often are the only ones with access to the people who make the errors and publish the hype and lies.
Barring that, we'll settle for proven factualities after the right questions are asked in an effort to find the truth, no matter whom the truth hurts or what it shows.
Net the Truth Online
If the tea party organizers didn't want to hear what Joseph Farah, founder/publisher of World Net Daily had to say regarding the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate, the tea party organizers would not have invited Farah as a speaker.
We've covered the issue previously and believe WND's coverage has lacked the benefit of material we've found but nonetheless we believe in freedom of speech as a guaranteed right as all other rights.
Even if the speech is not exactly supportable.
What's interesting about Farah's comments to Breitbart:
"I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?" Farah had gotten irritated. "That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth."
We agree with that to some extent. Journalism should ask questions in an effort to seek truth, no matter what the truth shows.
but oftentimes, some issue or some factuality must be proven, especially when entire careers are fairly often built on fallacies... Michael Moore and Al Gore come to mind
Some things do need to be proven by journalists as they often are the only ones with access to the people who make the errors and publish the hype and lies.
Barring that, we'll settle for proven factualities after the right questions are asked in an effort to find the truth, no matter whom the truth hurts or what it shows.
Net the Truth Online
The Tea Party Splatters
by Samuel P. Jacobs
As the grassroots movement prepares for its first big bash of 2010, internal dissent, finger-pointing, and paranoia could stunt its growth.
How do you take a spontaneously erupting grassroots phenomenon fueled by rebel anti-government rage, and mold it into a coherent political movement?
Not very easily, it turns out. That much is becoming clear, as 600 members of disparate groups from across the country prepare to descend next month on Nashville for the first National Tea Party Convention. The group’s big coming-out party is threatened by a rash of infighting, finger-pointing and paranoia.
The stars of the movement, such as they are, will be out: Going Rogue author, former GOP vice-presidential nominee, and newly minted Fox News contributor Sarah Palin; Minnesota GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann; and prominent birther Joseph Farah, the editor of WorldNetDaily, among them. But a number of Tea Party activists recoil at the very idea that their movement should have stars—and are steering clear because they don’t want to follow any one leader. And FreedomWorks, the nonprofit headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey—and the group that helped foster the early growth and development of the Tea Party insurgency—has decided to stay away.
“We would strongly oppose any person or organization becoming the movement,” says Adam Brandon, press secretary for FreedomWorks, in explaining his group’s absence. “At that point, it crashes into the mountain.”
Brandon was complimentary of the organizers of the event: Tea Party Nation, a group founded by Tennessee defense lawyer Judson Phillips, who says he aims to make a profit on the event and turn money over to conservative causes. “Let a million flowers bloom,” Brandon says. But he says FreedomWorks favors a “different model” of activism. At the group’s Washington, D.C. headquarters, a book called The Starfish and The Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations is required reading.
“If you look at the March on Washington,” Brandon says, referring the event that FreedomWorks organized last September which brought tens of thousands of anti-government-spending protesters to the Capitol, “there was a reason why we didn’t bring big names.” Instead of heading to Nashville, FreedomWorks will bring a few dozen activists to Washington later in February to compare notes on best protest practices.
Armey’s crew is not the only one grumbling about the coming bash. The Tea Party Patriots, an umbrella group which organizes nationwide and helped FreedomWorks rally turnout for the September protest, are irritated about another organization planning to attend: The Tea Party Express, a group with deep ties to a Republican consulting firm. The Patriots complained to Talking Points Memo that the Express crowd is compromised by their Republican relationships—and therefore anathema to the grassroots. But they should beware the holier-than-thou act: The Patriots work closely with FreedomWorks, which is backed by the likes of Exxon Mobil and billionaire conservatives Richard Scaife and Steve Forbes. Each group seems determined to lay claim to the true Tea Party mantle—and in the process, elbow out people who ought to be allies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x509671
February 6, 2010 12:10 PM
Birther in Hot Water at Tea Party Meet
Font size Print E-mail Share 301 comments Posted by Charles Cooper Attending the Tea Party Convention in Nashville this weekend, The Washington Independent's always-excellent David Weigel recounts an extraordinary hallway confrontation between online publisher Andrew Breitbart and WorldNetDaily Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah over the question of President Obama's citizenship. (Here's the video of his speech, courtesy of C-SPAN. It follows Angela McGlowan's pep talk, starting at the 12.10 mark.)
During his speech, Farah said he hoped that Mr. Obama would not be able to go into any city without seeing signs asking about his bith certificate. "It's a simple question but it hasn't been answered," he said, adding that "it's one of the most important questions that we can be asking."
Following the speech, Farah was cornered by Weigel, who informed him that Breitbart had dismissed the birther argument as a losing political argument. When Breitbart later walked by, Farah insisted that it was "a winning issue." (You can read the entire article but I want to reproduce this verbatim snippet.)
...Prove it!"
"Prove what?"
"Prove your case."
"I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?" Farah had gotten irritated. "That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth." ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/06/blogs/coopscorner/entry6180845.shtml
Was at a Tea Party When a Birther Rally Broke Out
Posted on February 6, 2010, 4:23PM | Nick Gillespie
Former Reasoner David Weigel is covering the Nashville Tea Party convention for the Washington Independent and reports on this argument between World Net Daily's Joseph Farah and Big Hollywood/Government/Journalism's Andrew Breitbart over Farah's speech, which went long on discussions of Obama's birth certificate
http://reason.com/blog#article_139148
Global warming UNraveled
As the saying goes, don't count your chickens til they're hatched.
Same for the demise of the global warming man-made causes it enthusiasts.
They've spent the past two decades at least finding an angle to mire the United States in United Nations webs on environmental issues.
School textbooks are unlikely to stop featuring facts which have met with challenge recently.
but it's heartening to read again and again...
of the scandal associated with much of the so-called scholarship surrounding man's contribution to global warming.
We're still wondering what Ronald Bailey will come up with for justification for his years back declaration: We're all global warmers, now!
Not. Again. Finally. Put it to rest, Mr. Bailey.
Net the Truth Online
Great Global Warming Collapse
Same for the demise of the global warming man-made causes it enthusiasts.
They've spent the past two decades at least finding an angle to mire the United States in United Nations webs on environmental issues.
School textbooks are unlikely to stop featuring facts which have met with challenge recently.
but it's heartening to read again and again...
of the scandal associated with much of the so-called scholarship surrounding man's contribution to global warming.
We're still wondering what Ronald Bailey will come up with for justification for his years back declaration: We're all global warmers, now!
Not. Again. Finally. Put it to rest, Mr. Bailey.
Net the Truth Online
Great Global Warming Collapse
Margaret Wente
Published on Friday, Feb. 05, 2010 6:45PM EST
Last updated on Saturday, Feb. 06, 2010 4:15AM EST
In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.
These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.
But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.
“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.
The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true – and even if we knew what to do – a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” Copenhagen was never going to produce a breakthrough. It was a dead end.
And now, the science scandals just keep on coming.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
Poverty Root Cause of Crime Theory Demolished
Finally, proof the theory of crime based on the jobless statistics is right before our very eyes, and in the recent plight of an astonishing number of jobless in the United States of America. We noted years back, it's the character of the individual that either meets or fails to meet life's financial setbacks. One would have thought the Great Depression statistics would have put the lie to the new theories that cropped up in the 60s, just in time for Lyndon Johnson's misguided government programs. Of course, anybody at the time presenting the opposite would have been labeled as something, probably racist.
On Editorial Journal, Paul Gigot interviews Heather Macdonald of the Manhatten Institutie.
If crime rate goes up, it will be because incarceration rates have gone up, and police forces are scaled back! Macdonald stated.
LA has seen double digit CRIME RATE drops! New York homicide rates down 19 percent!
The theory crime is a 'social' backlash from poverty, lack of jobs, and poor economy has been tilted on its head and doing sommersaults!
Let's track the mainstream media's coverage of the demolition of this theory. Oh what's that, very little if any coverage? Heather Macdonald and others citing the statistics that show the poverty causes crime theory is busted appear only on Fox News Network?
And what about further proof in the internet-planned snowball 'fight' in Washington, DC? Unbelievable, heh. Hundreds of people unknown to each other go out of doors for a snowball fight that replays the scenes from the idyllic 40s and 50s?
http://www.thestarblog.com/2010/02/dupont-circle-snowball-fight-erupts-as-washington-dc-blasted-by-snow-storm-christian-science-monitor/
No looting. No robberies. No scams.
Well it's not that these things don't happen. They do. But those who claim poverty or lack of jobs beget crime should have a snowball imprinted with 2/6/10 uh ok land at their feet.
Net the Truth Online
On Editorial Journal, Paul Gigot interviews Heather Macdonald of the Manhatten Institutie.
If crime rate goes up, it will be because incarceration rates have gone up, and police forces are scaled back! Macdonald stated.
LA has seen double digit CRIME RATE drops! New York homicide rates down 19 percent!
The theory crime is a 'social' backlash from poverty, lack of jobs, and poor economy has been tilted on its head and doing sommersaults!
Let's track the mainstream media's coverage of the demolition of this theory. Oh what's that, very little if any coverage? Heather Macdonald and others citing the statistics that show the poverty causes crime theory is busted appear only on Fox News Network?
And what about further proof in the internet-planned snowball 'fight' in Washington, DC? Unbelievable, heh. Hundreds of people unknown to each other go out of doors for a snowball fight that replays the scenes from the idyllic 40s and 50s?
http://www.thestarblog.com/2010/02/dupont-circle-snowball-fight-erupts-as-washington-dc-blasted-by-snow-storm-christian-science-monitor/
No looting. No robberies. No scams.
Well it's not that these things don't happen. They do. But those who claim poverty or lack of jobs beget crime should have a snowball imprinted with 2/6/10 uh ok land at their feet.
Net the Truth Online
OPINION JANUARY 4, 2010, 9:52 P.M. ET A Crime Theory Demolished
If poverty is the root cause of lawlessness, why did crime rates fall when joblessness increased?
By HEATHER MAC DONALD
The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice. As the economy started shedding jobs in 2008, criminologists and pundits predicted that crime would shoot up, since poverty, as the "root causes" theory holds, begets criminals. Instead, the opposite happened. Over seven million lost jobs later, crime has plummeted to its lowest level since the early 1960s. The consequences of this drop for how we think about social order are significant.
The notion that crime is an understandable reaction to poverty and racism took hold in the early 1960s. Sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin argued that juvenile delinquency was essentially a form of social criticism. Poor minority youth come to understand that the American promise of upward mobility is a sham, after a bigoted society denies them the opportunity to advance. These disillusioned teens then turn to crime out of thwarted expectations.
The theories put forward by Cloward, who spent his career at Columbia University, and Ohlin, who served presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter, provided an intellectual foundation for many Great Society-era programs. From the Mobilization for Youth on Manhattan's Lower East Side in 1963 through the federal Office of Economic Opportunity and a host of welfare, counseling and job initiatives, their ideas were turned into policy.
If crime was a rational response to income inequality, the thinking went, government can best fight it through social services and wealth redistribution, not through arrests and incarceration. Even law enforcement officials came to embrace the root causes theory, which let them off the hook for rising lawlessness. Through the late 1980s, the FBI's annual national crime report included the disclaimer that "criminal homicide is largely a societal problem which is beyond the control of the police." Policing, it was understood, can only respond to crime after the fact; preventing it is the domain of government welfare programs.
The 1960s themselves offered a challenge to the poverty-causes-crime thesis. Homicides rose 43%, despite an expanding economy and a surge in government jobs for inner-city residents. The Great Depression also contradicted the idea that need breeds predation, since crime rates dropped during that prolonged crisis. The academy's commitment to root causes apologetics nevertheless persisted. Andrew Karmen of New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice echoed Cloward and Ohlin in 2000 in his book "New York Murder Mystery." Crime, he wrote, is "a distorted form of social protest." And as the current recession deepened, liberal media outlets called for more government social programs to fight the coming crime wave. In late 2008, the New York Times urged President Barack Obama to crank up federal spending on after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs. "The economic crisis," the paper's editorialists wrote, "has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs—among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities."
Even then crime patterns were defying expectations. And by the end of 2009, the purported association between economic hardship and crime was in shambles. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, homicide dropped 10% nationwide in the first six months of 2009; violent crime dropped 4.4% and property crime dropped 6.1%. Car thefts are down nearly 19%. The crime plunge is sharpest in many areas that have been hit the hardest by the housing collapse. Unemployment in California is 12.3%, but homicides in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Times reported recently, dropped 25% over the course of 2009. Car thefts there are down nearly 20%.
The recession crime free fall continues a trend of declining national crime rates that began in the 1990s, during a very different economy. The causes of that long-term drop are hotly disputed, but an increase in the number of people incarcerated had a large effect on crime in the last decade and continues to affect crime rates today, however much anti-incarceration activists deny it. The number of state and federal prisoners grew fivefold between 1977 and 2008, from 300,000 to 1.6 million.
***
The spread of data-driven policing has also contributed to the 2000s' crime drop. At the start of the recession, the two police chiefs who confidently announced that their cities' crime rates would remain recession-proof were Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. As New York Police Commissioner in the mid-1990s, Mr. Bratton pioneered the intensive use of crime data to determine policing strategies and to hold precinct commanders accountable—a process known as Compstat. Commissioner Kelly has continued Mr. Bratton's revolutionary policies, leading to New York's stunning 16-year 77% crime drop. The two police leaders were true to their word. In 2009, the city of L.A. saw a 17% drop in homicides, an 8% drop in property crimes, and a 10% drop in violent crimes. In New York, homicides fell 19%, to their lowest level since reliable records were first kept in 1963.
The Compstat mentality is the opposite of root causes excuse-making; it holds that policing can and must control crime for the sake of urban economic viability. More and more police chiefs have adopted the Compstat philosophy of crime-fighting and the information-based policing techniques that it spawned. Their success in lowering crime shows that the government can control antisocial behavior and provide public safety through enforcing the rule of law. Moreover, the state has the moral right and obligation to do so, regardless of economic conditions or income inequality...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638024055735590.html
Friday, January 22, 2010
Supreme Court Ruling Free Speech Means Business
McCain - Feingold had stinging tentacles piercing the right of free speech, so long... goodbye...
Net the Truth Online
Finds
Compare to
Net the Truth Online
Finds
Over at CNN Opinion, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch tries explaining to those saddened by today's landmark Supreme Court ruling that this case truly was about restoring constitutional protections to free political expression.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/reason-writers-around-town-mat
Compare to
The Court Strikes a Blow to Democracy
Published: January 21, 2010
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?hp
Campaign Obama vs President Obama
We noted months back the mandate in the Health care reform proposal pre-the insurance reform angle, and with the insurance reform angle, is simply unconstitutional and dangerous.
No bill from Congress therefore should be accepted by the citizens of the United States. None. We simply cannot trust any one of the legislators who espouse government being enabled to mandate individuals must purchase health insurance, or else.
Or else what? Fines, penalties, imprisonment? What are they going to do to those who will not purchase insurance just to stand ground that government cannot force them to purchase health insurance? Garner wages? Fines that accrue until when?
Just tell Congress - do not intrude in this way.
Net the Truth Online
No bill from Congress therefore should be accepted by the citizens of the United States. None. We simply cannot trust any one of the legislators who espouse government being enabled to mandate individuals must purchase health insurance, or else.
Or else what? Fines, penalties, imprisonment? What are they going to do to those who will not purchase insurance just to stand ground that government cannot force them to purchase health insurance? Garner wages? Fines that accrue until when?
Just tell Congress - do not intrude in this way.
Net the Truth Online
Health Insurance by Command
The trouble with the individual mandate
Steve Chapman | January 21, 2010
The nice thing about elections is that they give you a choice not only of people but of policies. In the 2008 primaries, for instance, Hillary Clinton offered a health care plan that required everyone to get insurance, while Barack Obama’s blueprint had no such mandate. That was about the only difference in their suggested solutions.
It was a big one, to hear Obama tell it. He aired a TV ad attacking Clinton because her scheme “forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”
He, by contrast, stressed that he would encourage more coverage by offering federal help in paying for it, while trusting in the ultimate wisdom of individual Americans to make their own decisions.
Voters had a clear choice, and they chose Obama and his voluntary plan over Clinton and her compulsory approach. That settled that.
Or so we thought. But something happened after Obama arrived in the Oval Office. His deep faith in the free decisions of ordinary people soon evaporated. Last summer, after the House included a mandate in its legislation, Obama suddenly had a change of heart.
Now, his new approach has a certain economic logic behind it. If you require insurers to take all comers, you create an incentive for people to go uninsured until they get sick. They get the benefits of coverage without the burden of having to pay for it even when they’re healthy. A mandate would compel them to accept the bitter along with the sweet.
But still: A mandate is a big intrusion into the personal autonomy that a free society is supposed to protect. You may be willing to do without medical care or treat your brain cancer with bee pollen. Too bad. You will have to buy insurance anyway.
Is that coercive? Certainly. Is it constitutional? If it passes, we will find out, since there will be a legal challenge. Some legal scholars and state attorneys general take seriously the notion that, as James Madison asserted, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” Making people buy health insurance is conspicuously not among them.
The Supreme Court has conceded many powers to the national government. But allowing it to force individuals to spend their own money to acquire a commodity they don’t want would go beyond its established boundaries.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/21/health-insurance-by-command
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
AP Reports Scott Brown bests Coakley
80 percent of the vote was in at the time Fox News Sean Hannity reported the AP reported Scott Brown claimed the Massachusetts Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy.
Notice the following article featuring breaking news was updated from the original (original 8:22 pm)
In epic upset, GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate race
By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writers © 2010 The Associated Press
Jan. 19, 2010, 8:22PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6825260.html
The updated full article (9:51 PM) doesn't reference the earlier version.
In epic upset, GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate race
By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writers © 2010 The Associated Press
Jan. 19, 2010, 9:51PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6825393.html
We caught the announcement of Brown's win reported on Fox News Network Sean Hannity program at 9:20 PM, then switched to other networks reporting the AP release.
Bev Harris' Black Box Voting org website warned of the media calling the election before all the votes were counted.
(MA) 1/10 - LOOKING OUT FOR PREMATURE "CALLING" OF MASS. ELECTION -...
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80818.html?1263953376
but with the use of electronic tallying, the national media has immediate access to unofficial election results instantaneously when the state and localities release the results at super speed.
Everyone should realize of course all of the initial results are released by election officials as 'unofficial' results. The certification process ensues over a period of days, also allowing for 'military' and other protected absentees some potential for additional time to arrive to be counted.
Provisional ballots are also set aside after polls close and are to be dealt with within the time period allowed by law.
However, statistics on uncounted absentees and uncounted provisionals are available immediately as well. If these are projected to be more than the percentage needed to alter the unofficial results, the media usually reports this fact and the election officials will clarify.
The updated AP article contains this matter for our consideration.
We'll track a few sites for your information. What kind of voter irregularities? did the predicted turnout match the actual turnout? What were the statistics concerning military or other absentees and provisionals? When was the voter registration deadline? How many independents in comparison to registered Democrats and Republicans?
What is telling, if Coakley early on charged actual, not potential, voter irregularities, why did she concede the election based on reports she couldn't believe? It's not as if there is any hurry to certify the election, right?
We are always wary of unconfirmed reports as well placed on google's service. Some news outlets simply extract a portion of the original news feed, and then other news comment outlets might leave out or be unaware of the full news release before posting commentary.
For instance, the headline making google search results is Mass. Sec. of State (Discounts) Voting Irregularities...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS349&q=massachusetts+voter+irregularities&start=10&sa=N
Get the subliminal message? Discounts = diss-counts?
For instance, the headline makes the top of this news feed, but the body of the article is wholly misleading...
what could not be confirmed is in a few instances, the voting irregularities were intentional, and thus could not be verified as fraud. The potential existed for voter error, possibly leaving the poll place without casting the paper ballot. In any case, the paper ballots were deemed spoiled and voided.
Another headline making the net rounds
Mass. Sec. of State dismissed reports of vote problem
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=massachusetts+voter+irregularities+galvin&btnG=Google+Search&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS349&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=
Washington Post headlines baed on the same AP article
Meanwhile, making the charges is the losing Democratic candidate's spokesman.
Coakley campaign alleges voting irregularities
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/coakley_campaig_3.html
Read down into the article/s which could be incomplete, and it's found the charges of irregularities stem from a couple of paper ballots being found already marked, one in its protective folder, for the Republican candidate.
Weekly Standard
It's surprising there are no reports as in past election years of the direct recording electronic voting machine malfunctions, at least none we've come ac/sross as of yet.
Bev Harris is conducting an analysis of numbers of election results in each Mass. precinct, but then we're wary as the site has in the past supported and been a proponent of use of paper ballots exclusively and only hand counted.
What's often disturbing is the idea over at Harris' BBV forum is that district election officials may have exclusive access to voting machines before and after an election and the potential exists for 'insider' voting tampering out of the eyesight of the public.
If that's believable, then why not as believable to have precinct election officials hand-counting paper ballots right in front of pollwatchers who still cannot 'view' the actual paper ballot so the observer cannot prove a particular ballot was counted wrongly or accurately.
As long as voter registrant numbers match the hand-counted paper ballots who is to know that pollworkers intentionally miscounted or misapplied ballot totals?
If the paper ballots are never run-through a scanner, with its resultant digital image stored in memory, there is no way to determine which ballots were counted correctly as cast and which weren't hand-counted as cast.
And then let's say the hand-count is done first with the scanner used as an additional record. Who is to determine then whether the scanner counted incorrectly for the record or the hand-count was counted incorrectly?
Meanwhile, websites and blogs may post a portion of the article or only the headline, leaving an impression not only were voting irregularities charged, but actually found to have occurred and confirmed as such.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Ballot irregularities charged in MA, IL election officials prepare for undervote warning, Google hack post-mortem continues
http://votingnews.blogspot.com/2010/01/ballot-irregularities-charged-in-ma-il.html
And more anecdotal stories are continuing to crop up.
The discussion is fascinating, and one member posts video related to 'absentee ballots'
Weekly Standard points out the myth of the absentee ballots being filled out on election day...
Finally, though, the loser in any contest can call for a recount of the entire election if foul play is suspected. Why didn't Coakley if the candidate believes something was truly and systematically amiss?
Discussion at Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4232348
Net the Truth Online
Notice the following article featuring breaking news was updated from the original (original 8:22 pm)
In epic upset, GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate race
By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writers © 2010 The Associated Press
Jan. 19, 2010, 8:22PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6825260.html
The updated full article (9:51 PM) doesn't reference the earlier version.
In epic upset, GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate race
By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writers © 2010 The Associated Press
Jan. 19, 2010, 9:51PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6825393.html
We caught the announcement of Brown's win reported on Fox News Network Sean Hannity program at 9:20 PM, then switched to other networks reporting the AP release.
Bev Harris' Black Box Voting org website warned of the media calling the election before all the votes were counted.
(MA) 1/10 - LOOKING OUT FOR PREMATURE "CALLING" OF MASS. ELECTION -...
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80818.html?1263953376
but with the use of electronic tallying, the national media has immediate access to unofficial election results instantaneously when the state and localities release the results at super speed.
Everyone should realize of course all of the initial results are released by election officials as 'unofficial' results. The certification process ensues over a period of days, also allowing for 'military' and other protected absentees some potential for additional time to arrive to be counted.
Provisional ballots are also set aside after polls close and are to be dealt with within the time period allowed by law.
However, statistics on uncounted absentees and uncounted provisionals are available immediately as well. If these are projected to be more than the percentage needed to alter the unofficial results, the media usually reports this fact and the election officials will clarify.
The updated AP article contains this matter for our consideration.
Galvin, who discounted sporadic reports of voter irregularities throughout the day, predicted turnout ranging from 1.6 million to 2.2 million, 40 percent to 55 percent of registered voters. The Dec. 8 primary had a scant turnout of about 20 percent...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6825393.html
We'll track a few sites for your information. What kind of voter irregularities? did the predicted turnout match the actual turnout? What were the statistics concerning military or other absentees and provisionals? When was the voter registration deadline? How many independents in comparison to registered Democrats and Republicans?
What is telling, if Coakley early on charged actual, not potential, voter irregularities, why did she concede the election based on reports she couldn't believe? It's not as if there is any hurry to certify the election, right?
We are always wary of unconfirmed reports as well placed on google's service. Some news outlets simply extract a portion of the original news feed, and then other news comment outlets might leave out or be unaware of the full news release before posting commentary.
For instance, the headline making google search results is Mass. Sec. of State (Discounts) Voting Irregularities...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS349&q=massachusetts+voter+irregularities&start=10&sa=N
Get the subliminal message? Discounts = diss-counts?
For instance, the headline makes the top of this news feed, but the body of the article is wholly misleading...
A spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin says ballots already marked for Republican Scott Brown could not be verified.
http://www.wopular.com/mass-secretary-state-discounts-reports-voter-irregularities
what could not be confirmed is in a few instances, the voting irregularities were intentional, and thus could not be verified as fraud. The potential existed for voter error, possibly leaving the poll place without casting the paper ballot. In any case, the paper ballots were deemed spoiled and voided.
Another headline making the net rounds
Mass. Sec. of State dismissed reports of vote problem
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=massachusetts+voter+irregularities+galvin&btnG=Google+Search&rlz=1R2SKPB_enUS349&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=
Washington Post headlines baed on the same AP article
Mass. secretary of state dismissed vote problems
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 19, 2010; 6:55 PM
BOSTON -- The Massachusetts secretary of state is discounting reports of voter irregularities in the state's Senate special election.
A spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin said Tuesday two reports of spoiled ballots could not be verified or found to be widespread.
In one case, someone voting in Cambridge claimed a ballot had already been marked for Republican Scott Brown. There was no way to verify the claim, but the ballot was destroyed.
In another case, a person in Boston reported finding a ballot inside a privacy folder also marked for Brown. Officials say it may have been left inadvertently by an earlier voter.
Aides to Democrat Martha Coakley called a news conference to raise voter awareness..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011903906.html
Meanwhile, making the charges is the losing Democratic candidate's spokesman.
Coakley campaign alleges voting irregularities
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/coakley_campaig_3.html
Read down into the article/s which could be incomplete, and it's found the charges of irregularities stem from a couple of paper ballots being found already marked, one in its protective folder, for the Republican candidate.
Weekly Standard
Coakley Holds Presser Over 'Irregularities'
Accusations on both sides.
BY Mary Katharine Ham
January 19, 2010 6:50 PM
The Coakley campaign held a conference call this evening to allege "voting irregularities" reported several supporters, who claimed they got ballots pre-marked for Brown.
The Sec. of State William Galvin, talked to the Boston Herald about two such instances:
http://theweeklystandard.com/blogs/coakley-holds-presser-over-irregularities
It's surprising there are no reports as in past election years of the direct recording electronic voting machine malfunctions, at least none we've come ac/sross as of yet.
Bev Harris is conducting an analysis of numbers of election results in each Mass. precinct, but then we're wary as the site has in the past supported and been a proponent of use of paper ballots exclusively and only hand counted.
What's often disturbing is the idea over at Harris' BBV forum is that district election officials may have exclusive access to voting machines before and after an election and the potential exists for 'insider' voting tampering out of the eyesight of the public.
If that's believable, then why not as believable to have precinct election officials hand-counting paper ballots right in front of pollwatchers who still cannot 'view' the actual paper ballot so the observer cannot prove a particular ballot was counted wrongly or accurately.
As long as voter registrant numbers match the hand-counted paper ballots who is to know that pollworkers intentionally miscounted or misapplied ballot totals?
If the paper ballots are never run-through a scanner, with its resultant digital image stored in memory, there is no way to determine which ballots were counted correctly as cast and which weren't hand-counted as cast.
And then let's say the hand-count is done first with the scanner used as an additional record. Who is to determine then whether the scanner counted incorrectly for the record or the hand-count was counted incorrectly?
Meanwhile, websites and blogs may post a portion of the article or only the headline, leaving an impression not only were voting irregularities charged, but actually found to have occurred and confirmed as such.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Ballot irregularities charged in MA, IL election officials prepare for undervote warning, Google hack post-mortem continues
http://votingnews.blogspot.com/2010/01/ballot-irregularities-charged-in-ma-il.html
And more anecdotal stories are continuing to crop up.
The discussion is fascinating, and one member posts video related to 'absentee ballots'
why is this woman handing out absentee ballots?
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/ma-senate-race-january-19-2010-voter-turnout-high-massachsuetts-secretary-of-state-william-galvin-40-percent-of-voters-poll-watchers-voting-abuses-wbz-boston-be-our-eyes-ears/
Weekly Standard points out the myth of the absentee ballots being filled out on election day...
...The Coakley campaign's press release about the alleged irregularities was dated yesterday. The date has since been corrected, but I grabbed a screen shot. It was either a typo, once again demonstrating the incompetence of the Coakley campaign, or in the more cynical reading, evidence that Coakley's camp planned to bring forth such allegations before voting even started. I'd bet on the former, but the Brown campaign goes after them for trying to pull a pre-emptive strike.
Brown supporters were noting a YouTube video today in which a woman appears to be giving out blank absentee ballots on Election Day, but the Sec. of State expresses doubt about whether it was shot today:
The Brown campaign said there is a YouTube video of a woman displaying an absentee ballot in Lawrence, according to Galvin. He said there’s no evidence the video was taken today.
“We don’t think of it as something that’s going to affect the count,” Galvin said.
Lawrence City Clerk William Maloney said he spoke with the woman in the video, who he identified as Isabel Melendez. Melendez is a well-known figure in Lawrence and program director at the Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc. and hosts a local radio program.
Maloney said Melendez told him the video was shot yesterday and the ballots she is seen holding are actually samples.
http://theweeklystandard.com/blogs/coakley-holds-presser-over-irregularities
Finally, though, the loser in any contest can call for a recount of the entire election if foul play is suspected. Why didn't Coakley if the candidate believes something was truly and systematically amiss?
Discussion at Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4232348
Net the Truth Online
In epic upset, GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate race
By GLEN JOHNSON and LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writers © 2010 The Associated Press
Jan. 19, 2010, 8:22PM
In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.
The loss by the once-favored Coakley for the seat that the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy held for nearly half a century signaled big political problems for the president's party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.
More immediately, Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president's health care legislation and the rest of Obama's agenda. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6825260.html
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Scarborough: Limbaugh's Haiti Language Deplorable Indefensible
We would have to agree, there is no question Rush Limbaugh crossed the line of mere conscious objection to the Obama Administration's spending of our tax resources to help another nation, Haiti, meet the challenge of digging out of this devastation caused by a natural disaster.
Where is Rush's conscience?
The potential for widespread disease alone is cause enough for the participation of the United States to do all it can do to aide Haitian people.
We're astonished as we have yet to hear rejection of Limbaugh's arrogance by the likes of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck.
Haiti’s Health System Crumbles Under Quake as Outbreaks Loom
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arxZJfdcT_i0
Where is Rush's conscience?
The potential for widespread disease alone is cause enough for the participation of the United States to do all it can do to aide Haitian people.
We're astonished as we have yet to hear rejection of Limbaugh's arrogance by the likes of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck.
Haiti’s Health System Crumbles Under Quake as Outbreaks Loom
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arxZJfdcT_i0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
