Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2010

The propagandists in the mainstream media have painted Elena Kagan as a Clinton moderate, while pundits praise her Harriet Myers-esque lack of experience. Reminiscent of LBJ’s appointment of longtime friend and confidant Abe Fortas as Chief Justice, Brother O has clearly appointed an ideological soul mate, as hell-bent as he is to change the American model from an open and competitive economic system based on individual freedom to a system of centralized planning based on a leftist collective of grievance groups.  

No Republican Senator with a modicum of decency, a trace of conscience, and an ounce of self respect should consent to appoint Kagan now that her writings prove her ties to radicalism.

At what point will Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Scott Brown (MA) stop singing her praises and realize that a vote for Kagan is a vote for “socialism’s greatness.”

I.M. Kane


 

Reports Reveal Elena Kagan Used Deception, Distortion And Flat-Out Lies To Win Cases

From Nicedeb

Kagan’s uncovered college thesis [PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY EXERCISING ITS COPYRIGHT RIGHTS.] revealed her to be a stone cold Socialist – and her methods which are now finally being examined, are showing her to be an Alinskyite radical.

What would Saul Alinsky do if the facts in a case favored the other side? Facts can manipulated and distorted, and they often are with Alinsky radicals…ends always justify the means with these people. Being a little loose with the facts to get the outcome desired (for the good of humanity, mind you), is considered virtuous.

Shannen Coffin, writing for NRO, was a deputy attorney general during the Bush administration. He was charged with defending the federal partial-birth abortion act in court. He has discovered that Kagan, while a deputy assistant to President Clinton for domestic policy, used shocking and despicable slight of hand to help the Clinton administration overturn Nebraska’s ban on partial birth abortions.

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

***

The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

Of course, most of us already knew that thanks to our innate common sense. The liberal Supremes needed a scientific sounding excuse to allow the unsavory procedure, and like a good Alinsky soldier, she supplied it for them:

Kagan set about solving the problem. Her notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.)

Powerline has the image of Kagan’s notes in her handwriting. John Hinderaker concludes:

Ms. Kagan has a great deal of explaining to do. Unless she can come up with an innocent explanation for these documents, she should not be confirmed.

Alec Rawls of Error Theory, has another stunning example of Kagan’s duplicity, this time while she was Solicitor General for Obama:

Kagan lied to Supreme Court in 9/11 case, should be disbarred

As Obama’s solicitor general, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged the Court to dismiss the suit that our 9/11 families have been pressing against the Saudi government and several Saudi princes for their extensive funding of al Qaeda. The families sued under the domestic tort exception to sovereign immunity, which according to Kagan’s Supreme Court brief (at p. 14):

requires not merely that the foreign state’s extraterritorial conduct have some causal connection to tortious injury in the United States, but that “the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee” be committed within the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5).

The “tortious act or omission” is the wrongful act (the tort) that leads to the injury. Thus she is claiming that for Saudi funding of al Qaeda to be actionable, the funding itself has to have been transacted within the United States. Compare this with the actual wording of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(5)

(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case – … (5) … in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment…”

Contrary to Kagan’s assertion, the law only specifies that the injury has to have occurred within the United States. Not a word about the wrongful act that leads to domestic injury also having to have taken place within the United. Kagan flat lied about the clear wording of a law that goes to the very heart of our ability to use the courts to combat Islamic terrorism, and thanks to the Court’s failure to review this crucial case, the simple wording and intent of Congress—that foreign states whose actions do injury in the United States can be sued for those injuries—has now been undone, as if the law had never been passed.

“Oops!… I did it again”

Kagan proves that her lie was self conscious by also lying about the relevant Supreme Court precedent, claiming (again at p. 14):

In Amerada Hess the Court considered and rejected the argument that domestic effects of a foreign state’s conduct abroad satisfy the exception. 488 U.S. at 441.

In fact, the Court in Amerada never considered “the domestic effects of a foreign state’s conduct abroad” at all, for the simple reason that there were no domestic injuries in that case. The injuries occurred outside of U.S. territory, which is why the domestic tort exception was held not to apply. Here are the simple facts, as recounted in Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion (joined by Brennan, White, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia and Kennedy):

… the injury to respondents’ ship occurred on the high seas some 5,000 miles off the nearest shores of the United States. Despite these telling facts, respondents nonetheless claim that the tortious attack on the Hercules occurred “in the United States.” [At p. 440.]

The Amerada Company ship was attacked at sea. Since the tortious act and the damages from it both occurred “5,000 miles off the nearest shores,” the Court did not bother to distinguish between the wrongful act and the injuries from it. Kagan uses this to claim that the Court found Amerada’s domestic injuries to be unrecoverable, when in fact the Supremes agreed with the district court that there were no domestic injuries (p. 439-441).

Has any solicitor general ever flat lied to the Supreme Court before? Isn’t any lawyer who unambiguously lies to the Court about the simple facts of a cited holding subject to disbarment for unethical behavior? And she did it for an unethical purpose: to help the financiers of 9/11 escape justice. Any moral person would either resign in the face of such a job assignment, or would limit himself to making what honest arguments could be mustered. This moral pervert chose to lie and ought to be busted out of the profession for it, not promoted to the highest court in the land.

Radicals consider themselves to be moral people, too. They just have a vastly different idea of morality than we do.

Read Full Post »

Missouri VA Hospital May Have Infected Veterans with Hepatitis and HIV

By Jerry A. Kane

A failure by dental technicians to clean instruments properly at a VA hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, may have exposed nearly 2,000 veterans to hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

The John Cochran VA Medical Center recently notified 1,812 veterans that they could have been infected with hepatitis and HIV viruses after visiting the medical center for dental work.

Dr. Gina Michael, the association chief of staff at the hospital, said that some dental technicians neglected to properly sanitize dental equipment. According to Michael, the techs thought they were doing the right thing in protecting the delicate instruments by hand washing them in a sink with strong soap instead of following protocol and sending them to the hospital sanitizing and sterilizing department.

The hand washing of tools had been on going for over a year (February 2009 – March 2010) until discovered by a routine inspection from headquarters.  Michael is urging those who were exposed to blood borne pathogens to get blood tests.

In a letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO) called the issue “unacceptable” and asked for a formal investigation and a remedy so that the unfortunate issue “never occurs again.”

The VA health care system demonstrates the real-world effects of socialized medicine. For decades VA hospitals have mistreated veterans and only recently have made minor improvements in record keeping and medical care, yet serious deficiencies remain.   

In the run up to the government health care takeover, Carnahan was Brother O’s toady touting the efficiencies and surplus of a government-run healthcare system.

During a St. Louis Community College healthcare forum, Carnahan was asked, “If it’s so good, why doesn’t Congress have to be on it?” Carnahan ignored his constituent’s question. We can only hope his constituents return the favor and ignore him in November.

For more information on the story, see also St. Louis VA Medical Center dental infections: Nearly 2,000 at risk by Mike Owens and VA hospital may have infected 1,800 veterans with HIV from CNN.

Read Full Post »

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don’t have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don’t get to enjoy the fruits of their labor.” Adrian Pierce Rogers

Star Parker is seeking to upset Democrat incumbent Laura Richardson in California’s 37th Congressional District. Richardson is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist in a strongly democratic-leaning district that voted for Brother O four-to-one in 2008.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

[After President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996] I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism. But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction. Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.—Star Parker

Conventional political wisdom doesn’t give Parker much of a chance to win a solidly Democratic district made up mostly of ethnic minorities, but those same “wise” pundits said Trey Grayson and Bob Bennett were slam dunks a few months back.

The focus of Parker’s campaign is to pull black people out of the welfare dependency trap. “The barrier between America’s chronically poor and the American dream is the welfare state socialism.”

Parker’s February 2009 article below is an excellent commentary on our nation’s present situation.

I.M. Kane

(H-T Pete)


 

Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation

By Star Parker

Six years ago I wrote a book called “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.” I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960’s, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems. The kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

“This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending-it’s a strategy for America’s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care, and education.”

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with unprecedented transparency and accountability.”

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 — The War on Poverty — which President Johnson said “…does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single parent homes and out of wedlock births.

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

Read Full Post »

Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) will try to attach the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (PSEECA) to the war supplemental up for approval by the House this week. The Act forces state and local governments to collectively bargain with police, firefighters and emergency workers, which would compel volunteer firefighters to join unions and may deter or even eliminate America’s nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments.

The act will impose an expensive unfunded mandate on state and local governments, without providing financing for the mandate, and force them to choose between cutting services or raising taxes.

“Firefighters unions vehemently oppose volunteer firefighters because they reduce the need for paid firefighters. They levy stiff internal fines against unionized firefighters who volunteer off-duty. By requiring all states and localities to collectively bargain, PSEECA would make it easier for unions to crack down on volunteer firefighting.” James Sherk, The Heritage Foundation

I.M. Kane


 

Will Congress Kill Volunteer Fire Departments?

By Robert B. Bluey

Volunteer fire departments are about as American as apple pie. But under legislation moving quickly in Congress, this staple of American life could soon be a thing of the past.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D.-S.C.) wants to include the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act as part of the war supplemental coming before the House this week. The bill forces state and local governments to collectively bargain with police, firefighters and emergency workers. Its critics say it would compel volunteer firefighters to join unions, threatening the survival of America’s nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments.

The act would affect some states more than others. In North Carolina and Virginia, for example, collective bargaining is currently prohibited. Eighteen other states have limitations on bargaining. The legislation would likely force those governments to abandon merit-based promotions for public safety workers and shift instead to a collectively bargained seniority schedule, which unions prefer.

By including the legislation in the much larger supplemental appropriations bill, which funds the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clyburn would avoid a contentious fight with conservatives and appease unions with a legislative victory. And because the Senate has already passed the supplemental, Republicans would have no opportunity to amend it. In other words, the only way to stop the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is to keep it out of the supplemental.

The House previously approved the measure in 2007 with the support of 98 Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) tried and failed to attach it to the Senate version of the war supplemental in May. At least six Republican senators have signaled their support for the bill. They include Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine).

None of the Senate Republican co-sponsors hail from states that limit collective bargaining. Johanns, normally a solid conservative with an American Conservative Union rating of 95%, told the Wall Street Journal: “For several years now, we’ve seen the benefit of a similar policy in Nebraska which prevents public employees from going on strike while helping to establish reasonable compensation ranges.”

Critics of the bill call it anything but reasonable. The Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk documented the consequences to volunteer firefighters last time the bill was this close to passage in 2007. Sherk noted that nationwide 72% of firefighters are volunteers, serving mostly communities with fewer than 25,000 people.

Under the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, also known as PSEECA, the International Association for Fire Fighters stands to gain. The union, which represents career firefighters, strongly opposes volunteers and prohibits its members from belonging to volunteer departments, even when they’re not on duty.

“Firefighters unions vehemently oppose volunteer firefighters because they reduce the need for paid firefighters,” Sherk said. “They levy stiff internal fines against unionized firefighters who volunteer off-duty. By requiring all states and localities to collectively bargain, PSEECA would make it easier for unions to crack down on volunteer firefighting.”

Boosting membership at public-sector unions is a top priority for Big Labor. Last year they surpassed private-sector unions and represent an area of growth for the labor movement. Of course, the costs are steep as governments grapple with higher salaries and expensive benefits.

Like most labor unions, the International Association for Fire Fighters is also a major supporter of liberals, having given 82% of its political donations to Democrats over the past 20 years.

Conservatives aren’t alone in opposing the legislation. The National League of Cities and National Sheriffs’ Association criticized the bill when Reid attempted to attach it to another piece of legislation earlier this year. They worry about the encroachment of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which would intervene in states and localities without collective bargaining laws.

“We believe that employment decisions are best made at the state and local level,” said Ron Loveridge, mayor of Riverside, Calif., and president of the National League of Cities.

In an alert to its members, the National Sheriffs’ Association attacked the legislation for imposing an unnecessary federal mandate: “To force sheriffs and other public safety officers to adhere to a ‘one-size fits all’ federally mandated labor-management guidelines is to impede the ability of public safety offices to function most effectively and allocate valuable resources to the maintenance of public safety.”

The bill’s problems extend beyond the encroachment on states’ rights. The growing power and cost of public-sector unions is already straining government coffers. Sherk estimates that unionized state and local government employees make up to 12% more than their non-union counterparts and have more expensive benefit packages. Even without the legislation, the cost to states and localities is already adding up.


 

Public Safety Employer Employee Cooperation Act: The Heritage Foundation 2010 Labor Boot Camp

By James Sherk

What Is the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (PSEECA)?

  • The act would require all state and local governments to collectively bargain with public safety employees–police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel.
  • States would be forced to permit bargaining over wages, hours, and all terms and conditions of employment.
  • States would have to provide a dispute resolution mechanism, such as binding arbitration.
  • PSEECA allows the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to determine whether a state’s collective bargaining arrangements meet the standards as defined by the act. If they do not, the FLRA could impose a collective bargaining system on the state.
  • The FLRA would have considerable authority to enforce the act, including:
    • Determining the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation;
    • Conducting hearings and resolving complaints of unfair labor practices; and
    • Supervising or conducting elections to determine whether a labor organization has been selected as an exclusive representative by a voting majority of the employees.
    • States would be granted the authority to pass laws more expansive than those the federal government imposed.
    • States would not, however, be allowed to pass narrower laws than those contained in the act.

 Policy Objections

  • Unionized state and local government employees earn 11-12 percent higher pay than comparable non-union workers.
  • They also have more expensive benefit packages than non-union workers.
  • The act would end local control and flexibility by forcing the minority that has chosen not to collectively bargain to do so. Different states and local governments have different needs and should be free to fit their policies to their individual needs. Collective bargaining does not work everywhere.
  • Large majorities of public safety employees already collectively bargain. The states in which collective bargaining is appropriate and affordable have already chosen to do so. The legislation represents a solution in search of a problem.
  • Not all issues should be collectively negotiated. For instance: 
    • Police unions should not negotiate the terms and conditions under which their members may use deadly force.
    • Many state and local governments promote police officers on the basis of merit and performance instead of through collectively bargained seniority schedules. Merit-based promotions and raises encourage hard work and help put the best workers in the most sensitive positions. However, unions prefer seniority-based promotions. States should not be forced to bargain over this issue.
    • Experience demonstrates that collective bargaining does not lead to increased cooperation between public safety employees and their employers.
    • The process is inherently adversarial: Pitting employees and employers against each other at the bargaining table creates as much conflict as cooperation.
    • Consequently, public-sector employees will often strike when the law explicitly forbids it, putting vital public services at risk.
    • PSEECA may deter or even eliminate volunteer firefighting. Firefighters unions vehemently oppose volunteer firefighters because they reduce the need for paid firefighters. They levy stiff internal fines against unionized firefighters who volunteer off-duty. By requiring all states and localities to collectively bargain, PSEECA would make it easier for unions to crack down on volunteer firefighting.

Economic Effects

  • The act imposes an expensive unfunded mandate on state and local governments.
  • Without providing financing for the mandate, the act will force these governments to either cut services or raise taxes.
  • The act prevents employers from hiring workers who would do the same job for less than union wages, thus undermining potentially more qualified competition.
  • This gives the union much more negotiating power but harms workers who could negotiate a better individual deal with the employer. A non-union worker who prefers merit-based promotions must instead accept what the union negotiates for him.

James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

Read Full Post »

Bill Gives Obama Absolute Control of Internet

By Jerry A. Kane

A Senate committee unanimously approved major cybersecurity legislation which would allow Brother O to shut down Internet networks, block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries, and force private websites to comply with broad cybersecurity measures.

Last Thursday the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee agreed to send the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 to the Senate floor for a vote. The Act will create a White House Office of Cyberspace Policy and a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) center to adopt cybersecurity policies related to federal and private sector networks.

The legislation, crafted by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Tom Carper (D-DE) is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the federal government. Lieberman’s “Kill switch” bill parallels last year’s legislation by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) granting the government power to disconnect certain websites.

“We need this capacity in a time of war…. for the president to say, ‘Internet service provider, we’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country, or we have to put a patch on this part of it’.”—Joe (Droopy Dog) Lieberman on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley

Droopy Dog’s “Kill switch” bill would hand Brother O absolute power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight. His loosely worded bill also gives DHS’ new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) “significant authority” to monitor the “security status” of private websites, ISPs and other U.S. net-related business, and critical internet components in other countries.

“Companies would be required to take part in ‘information sharing’ with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that ‘relies on’ the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure’ would also be ‘subject to command’ by the NCCC under the proposed new law.”Andy Chalk

Privacy and civil liberties groups fear that Droopy Dog’s “Kill switch” bill would grant Brother O the power to declare a “national cyber-emergency” at his discretion, which could force private Internet service providers and search engines to limit or cut off a whistle-blowing or political site’s connection to the Web for blaming or criticizing the Bread and Circuses administration.

“We have seen through recent history that in an emergency, the Executive Branch will interpret grants of power very broadly.”— Gregory Nojeim, from the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that promotes Internet freedom

“The way it seems to be worded, the bill could easily represent a threat to free speech.” Wayne Crews, vice president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Droopy Dog is pushing his “Kill switch” bill “at lightning speed” because he says the country’s “economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from … cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.”

“The need for this legislation is obvious and urgent.” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

“We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources.”—Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Ginning up fears to rush legislation helps to mask the “Kill switch” bill’s real purpose, which is to keep the alternative Internet media from exposing the mainstream media propagandists in their whitewashing of government favoritisms, cover-ups, and atrocities.  After all, the fear card worked to rush through and hide the real agenda behind the Wallstreet/Automotive industry bailouts, the Porkulus package, and the ObamaCare bill.

Interestingly, the communist Chinese also claim the need to police and censor the Web to maintain security and combat cyber warfare, but the totalitarian government’s real agenda is to silence those who criticize it. It would appear that Droopy Dog, whom Glenn Beck heralds as a man of honor, wants to add a technological iron curtain to quell America’s ambiance.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”—Lieberman told Crowley

First Iran shuts down the Internet to quash a revolution, then Pakistan shuts down Facebook and Google to blackout “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day,” and now members of the U.S. Senate are mimicking communist China’s censorship and coercion policies to stifle Internet media outlets and bloggers who are quickly displacing the statists’ mainstream press organs.

Lieberman, whom Sean Hannity embraces as a friend and a “good guy,” declares his bill is “not a big deal,” and that his critics are over reacting and “intentionally peddling misinformation.”

Backers of the bill say they are not providing the president with a ‘kill switch’ for the Internet because he already has the authority under the Communications Act to close any facility or station for wire communication. In touting that bit of information, the heralded conscience of the Senate advises his friends on the Internet to “relax.”

But why waste the Senate’s time and the taxpayers’ money drafting a bill that gives the president the authority to shut down the Internet when he already possesses that authority? And why should the American people trust government leaders to make the Internet safe and secure when they can’t secure their nation’s own southern border?

In the wake of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) floating of the Drudge tax as a way to fund mainstream newspapers and to tax out of existence their competitors in the alternative media, George Orwell’s discernment might be better suited for Lieberman than either Hannity’s or Beck’s.

“Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”


 

Lieberman: China Can Shut Down The Internet, Why Can’t We 2:04 Video

Read Full Post »

Brother O’s nomination of Robert Chatigny (pronounced SHOT-ney) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd District passed by Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party line vote June 10, 2010.

The Connecticut District judge not only gave slap-on-the-wrist sentences to child pornographers, but he also went to great lengths to protect a serial killer from a death sentence and was willing to strike down the state’s version of Megan’s Law.

In a documentary, convicted serial killer Michael Ross described how he tied up and put 14-year-old Leslie Shelley in the trunk of his car, and then took 14-year-old April Brunais from the trunk and raped and killed her and put her in the front seat. Ross said if he wasn’t caught, he’d still be killing women.

“[Michael Ross] never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death.”—Judge Robert Chatigny, Obama nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd District

Twice Chatigny fought to stop Ross’ execution, but was overturned by the Supreme Court both times. In a feeble attempt to explain his actions to Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chatigny said that “sexual sadism is clearly a mitigating factor”; in other words, sexual sadists merit empathy because they’re sick.

Chatigny’s history of actively empathizing with serial killers, rapists, sex offenders, and child pornographers typifies the caliber of people in the flotsam surrounding Brother O and his Bread and Circuses administration.

I.M. Kane


 

In the 7:17 video below, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans question Judge (Empathy) Chatigny regarding his actions to keep a serial killer, the “Roadside Strangler,” off death row. The video also contains clips of Michael Ross, the convicted murderer of eight girls and women, ages 14 through 25.

Obama Nom: Chatigny’s Empathy for a Serial Rapist and Killer 7:17 Video


 

[T]he biggest problem with Chatigny’s nomination is not the odd extremes to which he went to in order to protect a serial killer from a legally imposed death sentence, nor even his willingness to give light sentences for child pornography offenses and strike down Connecticut’s version of Megan’s Law.

The biggest problem is that Chatigny presided over the Ross serial killer case despite having previously worked for Ross as a lawyer, without making anyone else aware of that fact.—David Freddoso


 

Chatigny: Devastating take-down of an obscure nomination

By David Freddoso

Before Democrats attempted to deep-six a large number of President George W. Bush’s appellate court nominees, circuit nominations rarely received much attention. But one — Robert Chatigny (pronounced SHOT-ney), President Obama’s nominee for the 2nd Circuit — is getting a lot more attention than he’d like.

Much of this report is emotion-driven, and surely we’ll hear again before November about how every Judiciary Committee Democrat except Diane Feinstein voted to move this nomination forward.

But setting aside the political angle, the biggest problem with Chatigny’s nomination is not the odd extremes to which he went to in order to protect a serial killer from a legally imposed death sentence, nor even his willingness to give light sentences for child pornography offenses and strike down Connecticut’s version of Megan’s Law.

The biggest problem is that Chatigny presided over the Ross serial killer case despite having previously worked for Ross as a lawyer, without making anyone else aware of that fact. In 1992, Chatigny had been asked to request leave to file a motion on Ross’s behalf. He never actually filed the motion, but he reviewed a motion written by another lawyer and “saw to it that it was filed” (his words). It wasn’t a great deal of involvement, but Chatigny himself admits that it was enough that he would have recused himself had he remembered his involvement.

But it’s quite difficult to believe that Chatigny would forget doing anything related to the most infamous case in Connecticut in at least half a century, and the only capital case there in the previous forty years. Moreover, consider his bold remarks on the case. Ross, Chatigny said at one point, should “never have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death.”

Does that sound like someone who has forgotten he ever worked on the case? It is therefore also difficult to believe that Chatigny was honest with the committee in saying he had forgotten.

Despite the best efforts by Media Matters but Truth Doesn’t to limit the damage, Senate Democrats in tough re-elect fights are not going to be falling all over themselves to vote for this guy.

Read Full Post »

Matthew Simmons, one of the world’s foremost oil experts and former energy adviser to President George W. Bush, told interviewers that a small-bore nuclear device is now the only option that will stop the Deep Horizon oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Simmons believes BP has been withholding the facts of the spill from the American people, and he doesn’t think the company’s planned relief well will work because the well casing’s gone and relief wells only work when the hole has a casing in it.

Simmons claims scientists aboard the NOAA ship Thomas Jefferson, America’s largest research vessel, have discovered a lake of very heavy oil 300 to 400 meters wide and 1100 meters below the surface that covers 40 percent of the Gulf of Mexico

Simmons points out that BP’s attempts to stop the leak have either failed or aren’t working well:

First Attempt:  Containment Dome resulted in failure

Second Attempt: Top Hat resulted in failure

Third Attempt:  Insertion Tube resulted in failure

Fourth Attempt:  Top Kill resulted in failure

Fifth Attempt:  Cut and Cap not working well

Sixth Attempt: Relief Wells to be completed in late August

According to Simmons, BP’s failures leave only two options:  live with 120,000 barrels of oil a day poisoning the Gulf of Mexico and maybe the Atlantic Ocean for the next 25 or 30 years or put a nuclear device down the hole and detonate it.

“[I]t’s an open hole. And the only way we’ll ever put it out is detonating something that will fuse the rock right above the oil column into glass. And the only way that anyone’s ever done that is the four times the Soviets did that in the ’70s with a very small bore nuclear device. So I think that’s now our only option.”—Matthew Simmons

I.M. Kane


Simmons Says Nuclear Device Only Option to Stop Oil Leak: Video 5:42 (June 15, 2010)


 

Gulf Oil Spill: Matt Simmons @ MS-NBC: Leak could last 30 years, open hole with no casing in it? Video 6:17 (June 12, 2010)


 

The Gulf Coast oil spill’s Dr. Doom

Interview by Nin-Hai Tseng

As an oil and gas industry insider, Matt Simmons speaks with a bold voice and makes even bolder predictions. His 2005 book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, which argued that Saudi Arabia’s oil supplies are way more limited than most people think, raised his profile as an authority on the industry.

For more than 35 years, Simmons has run a Texas-based boutique investment bank, Simmons & Co., which specializes in the energy industry. At times, with his somewhat doom-and -loom-like take on things, there’s a hint of conspiracy theorist in his tone. But it’s hard to ignore that Simmons is deeply connected and has been pretty much right on in the past: When oil was $58 a barrel the year Twilight was released, Simmons predicted prices would be at or above $100 within a few years. By 2008, when Fortune profiled Simmons, the price of crude had hit $147 a barrel.

As a big believer that wind power is the way of the future, Simmons says the era of easy oil is over and that world oil production will eventually fail to meet expected future demands.

These days, Simmons has been weighing in on BP (BP) and the worst oil spill in U.S. history, following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. As BP struggles to permanently stop the gush of oil, Simmons has been warning that the scale of the spill is much bigger and that there’s a larger leak several miles away.

Simmons also thinks that perhaps the only way to seal the gush of oil is by doing what the Soviet Union did decades ago — setting off a bomb deep underground so that the fiery blast will melt the surrounding rock and shut off the spill.

Fortune caught up with Simmons this week to hear his thoughts on the Gulf Coast oil spill, the future of BP and what’s ahead for offshore drilling.

Experts forecast an active hurricane season this year. We know it could disrupt efforts to stop the spill, but how else do you think storms could impact the Gulf Coast?

We’ve got to stop the gusher first. Then we have to deal with the other issues. There’s a lake at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico that’s over 100 miles wide and at least 400 to 500 feet deep of black oil. It’s just staying there. And only the lightest of that is what we’re seeing hitting the shores so far. If a hurricane comes and blows this to shore, it could paint the Gulf Coast black. We should have been pumping this oil out onto other tankers weeks ago.

How do you think the U.S. government should handle this disaster?

I think the government should ask BP to leave the United States and turn its operation over to the military. Put the U.S. Navy in charge. Have all the contractors report to the Navy — the cleanup efforts, the whole nine yards. Because as long as it’s in BP’s hands, they’re going to spin the information as long as they can.

What do you think is in store for the future of BP?

They have about a month before they declare Chapter 11. They’re going to run out of cash from lawsuits, cleanup and other expenses. One really smart thing that Obama did was about three weeks ago he forced BP CEO Tony Hayward to put in writing that BP would pay for every dollar of the cleanup. But there isn’t enough money in the world to clean up the Gulf of Mexico. Once BP realizes the extent of this my guess is that they’ll panic and go into Chapter 11.

There’s currently a ban on new deepwater oil projects for six months to prevent other disasters. What lies ahead for offshore drilling?

First of all, to the industry’s credit, we went 41 years in the United States without an oil spill. In a minor sense, this is what happened to the Challenger. We had so many successful shuttle takeoffs that the space station got kind of casual about this. But this is worse. BP was so certain that there wasn’t any risk that three years ago they thought the insurance industry was ripping them off, so they’re self-insured on this. How stupid! It was the best thing that ever happened to the insurance industry.

How do you think the Gulf Coast oil spill will change the energy business, if at all?

Profoundly. We’re going to have to go back and re-examine all of our regulatory rules and realize the easy stuff is imminent and the rest of the stuff we do is really risky. We have to start questioning whether it’s worth the risk, and do we need to get really serious about developing some alternative energy sources? Now I’m working on a big project in mid-coast Maine called the Ocean Energy Institute, and we’re hoping that within the next year we can actually create 50 megawatt offshore wind turbines — one every five miles a part — and turn that offshore electricity into desalinated sea water and liquid ammonia. It could replace motor gasoline and diesel fuel.

What are the lessons learned from this environmental disaster?

That oil peaked. The easy stuff is over. We have to continue drilling in shallow water, but we probably need to take a deep breath and step back. Until we develop a new generation of equipment that can respond to these accidents, just don’t go into the ultra-deep water and deep formations because it’s just too risky.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »