June 27, 2010

Now They’re Talking Turkey

Just when it looks like the entire world has lost its collective mind, practicality arises from an unexpected source.

Events in Turkey indicate that much of the Turkish public increasingly believes that their Prime Minister blundered by unnecessarily provoking a crisis with Israel.

If crises often provide opportunities, however, the long-term results of the flotilla incident might be just the opportunity to restore Turkish-Israeli relations to where they were before Turkey’s current Islamist government took power.

It now appears that the average Turk — for lack of a better term - approximately 70% of the population who is not part of the political establishment, the academic establishment, or the media — now understands that this crisis has hurt Turkey internationally and politically and that there was no reason for Turkey to provoke Israel.

It looks like the United States isn’t the only nation whose government is experiencing backlash from its citizens.

All over Turkey, people are asking the following questions:

Q: Where is this place called Gaza; who lives there?

A: The Palestinians – not Turks.

Q: Why are they trapped there?

A: Because Hamas is there, and will not work with the Palestinian Authority.

Q: Why should Turkey help them when Egypt – an Arab country - is also blockading Gaza, and none of the rich Arab petrodollar countries is helping the people in Gaza?

A: We are not a country as rich as the Arab petrodollar countries; they should help their own people. The Turkish government, our government, should use its money to help our poor, our laborers, and the people out in the eastern part of our country, nine out of ten of whom do not have enough money to put bread on their tables.

Q: Why then did our Prime Minister provoke this crisis?

A: This is an Arab affair. We are Turks. If the Arabs will not help themselves, and we do not have the basic necessities that we need, why should we worry about them? They do not help their own people, let alone other poor Muslims like ourselves. This is not our affair; we should not have been involved.

One elderly Turk summarized this attitude as follows: Why is there all this commotion about Gaza? There is very little difference between us and the Jews. We go to our mosques and they go to their mosques (i.e., Jewish synagogues). We eat Halal meat and they Jews eat their Halal meat (kosher meat). So, I do not understand why we are trying to protect these Palestinians. Why aren’t the Arabs helping their follow Arabs as we Turks are helping each other?

Erdigan (presumably): Ooops!

Yes, transcending even the game of global politics is one time honored tradition, that of remembering whom ones true friends are.

Moreover, many of these people are beginning to understand the value of the Turkish-Israeli relationship in positive ways they did understand before. For example, Israel helped Turkey, both militarily and internationally, with political support in the United States. For example, Israel and American Jewry have been helping Turkey over the years in Turkey’s lobbying efforts in Congress. Israel has also helped upgrade Turkish military equipment. Israel has also shared with Turkey intelligence information about the terrorist threats facing Turkey.

That’s what I’m talking about!

Continue reading here.

Hat Tip, TIP! (The Israel Project).

by @ 2:40 pm. Filed under Uncategorized

June 24, 2010

In Defense Of The NRA

In regard to the kerfuffle involving the National Rifle Association and H.R. 5175, the “Disclose Act”, there has been a lot of bashing of the NRA by conservatives and a number of organizations devoted to preserving our Second Amendment rights, based on accusations that America’s primary gun owners’ rights group has “sold out” to the anti-gun left in order to exempt themselves from the provisions of a bill which would strip other Second Amendment advocacies of certain rights while having no significant effect on the NRA.

Columnists, bloggers and even other “gun groups” for whose opinions, common sense and patriotic beliefs we here at Hard Astarboard have a great deal of respect express the above sentiment, and here we feel we must disagree.

Seth, Wolf and I are all life members of the NRA and appreciate the hard work they’ve done in the legislative area (the Institute for Legislative Action, NRA-ILA is perpetually, tirelessly and with almost superhuman tenacity all over state legislatures, city councils and both house of Congress) to preserve our Second Amendment rights. The NRA provides a plethora of useful and educational services, including firearms safety.

To the meat of the affair: The NRA-ILA is a legislative behemoth supported by millions of members and is the front line of the defense of our right to keep and bear arms. Their very size, financing and therefore powerful voice are intimidating to the left and to the elected and appointed flunkies of the left, and because of this the NRA’s opposition to H.R. 5175 caused the political opposition to make an accommodation.

The NRA had no intention of cutting out the “little guys”, as it were, but they also have a self appointed and therefore selfless duty to their members and indeed to all gun owning Americans to stay in the box and continue fighting the good fight on our behalf.

To quote Mike Piccione, editor of Guns & Patriots in a recent newsletter:

There were a lot of conservatives bad-mouthing the NRA last week. Most of the talkers aren’t even NRA members, so they have that in common with Obama, Pelosi & Hillary. I trust Wayne LaPierre to protect my gun rights more than whining critics with soft hands that spend more time holding a blow-dryer than a gun. I feel for my $2 a month I get value from the NRA that can’t be delivered from any other organization. If someone is bashing the NRA what is their real agenda anyway?

To hear the NRA’s side of the story, here:

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox’s Letter to Members of Congress on H.R. 5175, the Disclose Act

Read the document here in PDF format:

May 26, 2010

Dear Member of Congress:

I am writing to express the National Rifle Association’s strong concerns with H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, as well as our opposition to this bill in its current form. It is our sincere hope that these concerns will be addressed as this legislation is considered by the full House.

Earlier this year, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on certain political speech by nonprofit membership associations such as the NRA. In an attempt to characterize that ruling as something other than a vindication of the free speech and associational rights of millions of individual American citizens, H.R. 5175 attempts to reverse that decision.

Under the First Amendment, as recognized in a long line of Supreme Court cases, citizens have the right to speak and associate privately and anonymously. H.R. 5175, however, would require the NRA to turn our membership and donor lists over to the government and to disclose top donors on political advertisements. The bill would empower the Federal Election Commission to require the NRA to reveal private, internal discussions with our four million members about political communications. This unnecessary and burdensome requirement would leave it in the hands of government officials to make a determination about the type and amount of speech that would trigger potential criminal penalties.

H.R. 5175 creates a series of byzantine disclosure requirements that have the obvious effect of intimidating speech. The bill, for example, requires “top-five funder” disclosures on TV ads that mention candidates for federal office from 90 days prior to a primary election through the general election; “top-two funder” disclosure on similar radio ads during that period; “significant funder” and “top-five funder” disclosures on similar mass mailings during that period; and “significant funder” disclosure for similar “robocalls” during that period. Internet communications are covered if placed for a fee on another website, such as the use of banner ads that mention candidates for federal office. Even worse, no exceptions are included for organizations communicating with their members. This is far worse than current law and would severely restrict the various ways that the NRA communicates with our members and like-minded individuals.

While there are some groups that have run ads and attempted to hide their identities, the NRA isn’t one of them. The NRA has been in existence since 1871. Our four million members across the country contribute for the purpose of speaking during elections and participating in the political process. When the NRA runs ads, we clearly and proudly put our name on them. Indeed, that’s what our members expect us to do. There is no reason to include the NRA in overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements that are supposedly aimed at so-called “shadow” groups.

On the issue of reporting requirements, the bill mandates that the NRA electronically file all reports with the FEC within 24 hours of each expenditure. Within 24 hours of FEC posting of the reports, the NRA would be required to put a hyperlink on our website to the exact page on which the reports appear on the FEC’s website - and keep that link: active for at least one year following the date of the general election. Independent Expenditure reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $600 or more to the NRA during the reporting period and Electioneering Communication reports would have to disclose all individuals who donate $1,000 or more to the NRA during the reporting period. There are literally thousands of NRA donors who would meet those thresholds, so these requirements would create a significant and unwarranted burden.

Some have argued that under the bill, all the NRA would have to do to avoid disclosing our $600 or $1,000 level donors is to create a “Campaign-Related Activity Account.” Were we to set up such an account, however, we would be precluded from transferring more than $10,000 from our general treasury to the account; all individual donors to that account would have to specifically designate their contributions in that manner and would have to limit their contributions to $9,999; the burdensome disclosure requirements for ads, mailings and robocalls would still apply; and the NRA would be prohibited from spending money on election activity from any other source - including the NRA’s Political Victory Fund (our PAC). In sum, this provision is completely unworkable.

Unfortunately, H.R. 5175 attacks nearly all of the NRA’s political speech by creating an arbitrary patchwork of unprecedented reporting and disclosure requirements. Under the bill, the NRA would have to track the political priorities of each of our individual members - all four million of them. The cost of complying with these requirements would be immense and significantly restrict our ability to speak.

As noted above, there is no legitimate reason to include the NRA in H.R. 5175’s overly burdensome disclosure and reporting requirements. Therefore, we will continue to work with members from both parties to address these issues. Should our concerns not be resolved - and to date, they have not been - the NRA will have no choice but to oppose passage of this legislation.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director

Continuing:

Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175: DISCLOSE ACT

We appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).
Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. H.R. 5175 would put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threaten our members’ freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also be forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We didn’t “sell out” to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If it doesn’t, we will continue to strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.

There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.

And here:

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox’s Message on H.R. 5175

I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding the NRA’s position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act”. Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you’ll allow me to provide the proper context.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that’s why we told Congress we oppose it.

The NRA has never supported–nor would we ever support — any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don’t apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That’s easy to say–unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn’t support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama’s stimulus bill. And we’ve been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress’s unconstitutional attack on free speech. That’s a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.

Listen to whomever you like and draw whatever conclusions you will, but our position at Hard Astarboard is that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the NRA.

by @ 1:10 pm. Filed under Uncategorized

June 21, 2010

It Ain’t Adam 12 Or Dragnet, That’s For Sure

This one came in as a tip of sorts, a suggestion that I look up Maywood, Ca P.D., which I did, and Lo & Behold…

Barely a year after promising to reform its chronically troubled police force, the city of Maywood announced Wednesday that it would disband the 60-member department effective June 30.

City officials said the closure was caused by the city’s loss of insurance. Earlier this month, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority notified Maywood that it was terminating general liability and workers’ compensation coverage because the city posed too high a risk. An excessive number of claims filed against the Police Department, and the city’s failure to hire a permanent city manager, were among the highest risk factors, according to the agency.

“We don’t have an alternative,” Councilman Felipe Aguirre said “Nobody will insure us, not as long as we have the Police Department, even though we haven’t had any claims filed against us recently.”

The City Council will meet Monday to discuss what happens next — whether the city will contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or the city of Bell for police services.

The Maywood-Cudahy Police Department patrolled a gritty, two-square-mile area that includes Maywood and Cudahy, which has a population of about 70,000 — almost half of their residents undocumented — just south of Los Angeles. Until recently, the force appeared to function as a virtual refuge for misfit police officers. Although the city instituted numerous reforms under a year-old consent decree, officials said it was still too early to say whether the department had successfully turned itself around.

I’d like to say, “Only in California…” but the minute I did that, some other town someplace else in a far-left governed sanctuary state would probably leap up and claim solidarity or something.

Still, a population of about 70,000 — almost half of their residents undocumented — just south of Los Angeles does sound very California.

But here’s the fun part, keeping in mind that this is a police department we’re talking about.

In April 2007, the California attorney general’s office launched an investigation into the department after the Los Angeles Times reported that roughly a third of the department’s officers had been forced out of previous police jobs or had brushes with the law.

The attorney general’s report concluded that the department was “permeated with sexual innuendo, harassment, vulgarity, discourtesy to members of the public as well as among officers, and a lack of cultural, racial and ethnic sensitivity and respect.” The probe also found that officers routinely used excessive force, made arrests without probable cause and failed to investigate complaints.

As a result of that probe, the city approved a stipulated court order to reform the department. Among other requirements, the department was directed to install video cameras in the police station and in police vehicles. Officers also were required to carry digital recorders on patrol.

This sounds more like a penal unit for criminals and thugs, or maybe a long term public service penalty venue, than it does like a law enforcement agency, which is what a police department is.

Ah, Southern California…

by @ 11:40 am. Filed under Uncategorized

June 15, 2010

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Here at Hard Astarboard, while we make no bones about our solid opposition to those on the left and elsewhere whose politics threaten the liberty of all Americans and where we are quick to pounce when we become cognizant of same, we do endeavor to be fair (honestly, we do!).

With that in mind, in the aftermath of a typical incident on the part of a typical group of politically motivated, in this case stone-age, pro-terrorism Islamic agitators called Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine, we were pretty surprised and not a little pleased when the college administrators did the right thing, as opposed to taking the usual “progressive” approach, which is to say, silently applauding the deeds of garden variety miscreants, the “deeds” being the essential shouting down and therefore suppression of the right to register an opinion, of those with whom they disagree.

LOS ANGELES - A University of California, Irvine, disciplinary committee ruled that a Muslim student group should be suspended for at least a year because of a protest that disrupted a talk by Israel’s ambassador and led to the arrest of 11 students, according to documents released Monday.

The letter from a student affairs disciplinary committee to Muslim Student Union leaders said the group was guilty of disorderly conduct, obstructing university activities, furnishing false information and other violations of campus policy. University spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon said the committee’s decision will be a binding recommendation to the campus’ office of student affairs if a planned appeal by the group does not succeed.

MSU attorney Reem Salahi said the committee relied on evidence relied that was “inadequate and problematic” but declined to outline the group’s challenge in detail. She said the decision, if sustained, would leave Muslim students without an organization representing their interests. “It really does have very lasting constitutional implications,” she said. “It’s a chilling effect for Muslims on campus and their right to associate.”

Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren was repeatedly interrupted and called “murderer” and “war criminal” by pro-Palestinian students as he was giving a talk on the Middle East peace process in February. Eleven students were cited on charges of disrupting a public event after they were requested to refrain from heckling but did not. Orange County district attorney spokeswoman Susan Schroeder said criminal charges have yet to be filed and it was unknown if or when they would be. (Read earlier story: ‘Heckling of Israeli ambassador shameful’)

“Progressive” California universities, or so one would expect, would be the last institutions to interfere with the obstruction of the right to free speech of anyone whose doctrine didn’t agree with theirs or their Muslim love objects’ totalitarian ideals.

So, hats off to UC Irvine!

From One News Now.

by @ 12:15 pm. Filed under Uncategorized

June 3, 2010

Brewer Meets Obama

It’s about time, you say? C’mon, do you really believe it mattered, in the scheme of things, that Obama met head-to-head with the governor who signed the “controversial” anti-illegal immigration bill?

They met for half an hour and, of course:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) said Thursday that President Obama assured her that he would send White House staff members to her state to talk with officials about efforts to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

The governor said her meeting with Obama in the Oval Office was cordial, despite their disagreement over the widely criticized state law she signed in April, which gave police greater powers to enforce federal immigration laws.

She said Obama declined to discuss whether the Justice Department plans to file a lawsuit to block the law before it takes effect next month.

The White House said in a statement that the meeting went well but that Obama reiterated his concerns about the law, including that a patchwork of state immigration regulations would complicate the federal government’s role in setting and enforcing immigration policy. The White House said Obama would like Brewer to work with him to help pass comprehensive changes to the immigration system that would provide a path to citizenship for those already in the country illegally.

Of course Obama didn’t say whether or not his Attorney General and chief legal henchman, Eric Holder, was going to file a lawsuit to block the Arizona law; Assuming that Holder’s even gotten around, finally, to reading the ten page document, he’s probably busting his (pick a noun) trying to find something to take to court. Seeing as it’s pretty much the same thing as the federal law that the federal government hasn’t been enforcing, he probably doesn’t yet know if there’s anything in it he can use.

As regards a “patchwork of state immigration regulations”, maybe there would be no need for that, either if, once again, the federal government had been doing its job in that arena.

Moving right along, comprehensive changes to the immigration system that would provide a path to citizenship for those already in the country illegally would do what, exactly?

I’ll tell you, and you can call me a racist if you’d like, though I assure you I am anything but. I am merely stating facts.

The “progressives” assure us fiscally concerned types that awarding U.S. citizenship to illegals would mean that they would start paying taxes, now that they’d have social security numbers and employers would report their wages to the IRS.

Right.

You’ve got millions of people earning low wages, people who — and this is fact, not a “racist” diatribe — tend to have a lot of children in their families. Four, maybe five children in a family whose total annual income is in the ballpark of $20-25,000.00, maybe as high as $30,000.00.

Folks, have you ever heard of earned income credit?

These newly minted American citizens will not be paying taxes, they’ll be receiving anywhere from $3,000.00 and change to $5,000.00 plus, depending upon whether they have 1, 2, 3 or more children.

Multiply those numbers by anywhere from 6,000,000 to 12,000,000.

I’ll tell you one thing, that Barack Hussein Obama has absolutely no compunction when it comes to plunging our nation ever deeper into “unprecedented” (one of his favorite terms when describing his dubious “accomplishments”) debt.

When Obama says he wants somebody to “work with him”, he means, “My way or the highway”, so…

I don’t really see as that meeting between Brewer and Obama really meant much.

Do you?

by @ 9:28 pm. Filed under Immigration, Uncategorized

June 2, 2010

Fight That Oil Spill!

If you can’t seem to make any progress in practice, though, do it in court.

Opening a new front in the battle to contain the worst oil spill in the nation’s history, the Obama administration on Tuesday began a criminal investigation into the causes and consequences of the environmental disaster plaguing the Gulf Coast.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. revealed the criminal and civil probes into the BP oil-rig disaster just hours after President Obama vowed that government investigators would conduct a “full and vigorous accounting” of the still-uncapped spill. The president also ordered the oil giant to compensate those whose livelihoods have been harmed.

“We have an obligation to investigate what went wrong and to determine what reforms are needed so that we never have to experience a crisis like this again,” Mr. Obama told reporters in the Rose Garden after a meeting with the two co-chairmen of a new government panel that will oversee the probe.

While on a tour of the area in New Orleans, Mr. Holder promised a “meticulous, comprehensive and aggressive” government probe to ensure that “the American people do not foot the bill for this disaster and that our laws are enforced to the full extent.”

“That is our responsibility, and we will do nothing less,” said Mr. Holder, revealing that a team of Justice Department lawyers from Washington had met with attorneys general and U.S. attorneys in the states and districts whose coastlines and residents have been affected by the spill. “We will not rest until justice is done.”

They will not rest until justice is done.

What a load of crud! There’s plenty of time to go after BP, they’re not going anywhere, right? So instead of trying to deflect the public’s attention from the mess in the gulf and at the same time take the public’s attention off the fact that the Obama Administration’s not doing anything of a substantial nature about it, they do a diversionary tactic.

This reminds me of the cruise missiles Bill Clinton had launched during his sexcapades hearings, in order to take the peoples’ mind of the Lewinsky situation.

It is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t allow “progressives” to run the country: Their attributes lie in campaigning and slinging rhetoric, but do not extend into running the nation once they’ve won.

Once in office, they become clueless, so they feel compelled to resort to useless symbolism as a means of mollification of the people.

by @ 12:09 pm. Filed under Uncategorized

May 30, 2010

Now, What’s This All About?

Before I get into this, I should say that yesterday? I broke out the ol’ satellite dish on the boat and watched part of the U.S. Coast Guard & Minerals Management Service Joint Investigation hearings at Kenner, Louisiana.

I say “part of it” because that was all I could stomach.

You see, BP had one of their professional liars at the hearing, one of those ivy league educated goons whose job it is to obfuscate without appearing to do so, yet who are so obviously lying with the proverbial practiced straight face that it should turn the stomach on any honest man.

Well enough said about that except, oh, yeah, for Seth, his being an ex-coastie and all: Two U.S. Coast Guard officers have now completed BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolitions/SEALs) training, and three more coasties are in the pipeline.

These new SEALs, after their graduation at Coronado, will return to the Coast Guard, bringing their new skills to bear within the homeland security segments of the maritime military force’s responsibilities.

Now, what, I ask, is this? Still more skullduggery by the White House branch of the corrupt Chicago political machine? I’ve been out on the boat for the last couple of days and may have missed something since then, but…

With all the attention on President Obama’s bungling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the news of Congressional calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate of an alleged job offer by the Obama Administration to get Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) out of the Pennsylvania Senate race has been pushed down the news pages. This is a serious matter and something that will not be brushed aside. Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), former Bush Administration official Karl Rove and Senate Judiciary Republicans have raised the issue that somebody in the Obama Administration may have committed a felony.

Wow, someone in the Obama Administration might have committed a felony?

I mean,

This Administration has held themselves out to be more ethical than administrations of the past. President Obama’s declared in his inaugural address on January 21, 2009 that:

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This “new era of responsibility” should include an open discussion by the President about whether they did offer Congressman Sestak a job to get out of the primary race for the Democrat nomination to be the next Senator from the state of Pennsylvania.
The White House Web Site promises transparency and accountability right now:

President Obama has consistently made clear that he will strive to lead the most open, transparent, and accountable government in history. Whether it is reigning in the influence of lobbyists in Washington, bringing unprecedented accountability to federal spending, opening doors to engagement with the American public, or shutting down the “revolving door” that carries special interest influence in and out of the government, the highest standards will be sought in every thing the federal government does.

the most open, transparent, and accountable government in history.

When does that come into effect?

Those promises will be tested over the next few weeks with calls by some Republicans for the Obama Administration to come clean about an alleged job offer to Sestak. Karl Rove has alleged that one of two things are true: either Sestak is lying;

or, a crime may have been committed by somebody in the Obama Administration.

Karl Rove via the L.A. Times as quoted on the Fox News Channel:

One of two things is true, you can’t have two things true. One or the other is true. Either Joe Sestak is lying and he was not offered a position in the administration in return for getting out of the primary. You know he’s a liar, in which case not worthy of public service. Or, he’s telling the truth, in which case somebody inside the White House committed a felony. 18 USC 211 says that, a government official cannot promise a job in return for anything of value and it has a long list of values.

The entire article is here.

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that this gets ignored as much as possible by the quasi communist editors within the mainstream media.

by @ 2:56 pm. Filed under Uncategorized

May 27, 2010

A Couple Of Oily Developments

I so enjoy it when a major liberal “progressive” player is the loudest voice in the condemnation of one of his own ilk (that may not be fair, actually, because Obama seems, actually, to be an ilk of his own).

Democratic political strategist James Carville, a resident of Louisiana, slammed President Obama this morning for the “political stupidity” of his response to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The president doesn’t get down here in the middle of this… I have no idea of why they didn’t seize this thing,” Carville said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I have no idea of why their attitude was so hands off here.”

The White House has been on the defensive about its response to the spill, which began when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 people. Millions of gallons of oil have already spilled into the Gulf, and government agencies are still working with BP to try and cap the leak.

The administration is stressing the fact that it has sent thousands of response vessels and thousands of personnel, including top cabinet officials, to the scene. However, the president himself has only made one brief appearance in the region since the spill began and has only spoken publicly about the incident six times in the past five weeks, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.

A CBS News poll released yesterday shows 35 percent of people approve of the administration’s handling of the spill, while 45 percent disapprove.

“The president of the United States could’ve come down here, he could’ve been involved with the families of these 11 people” who died in the explosion, Carville said. “He could’ve demanded a plan in anticipation of this.”

He added, “It just looks like he’s not involved in this. Man, you got to get down here and take control of this.”

Mr. Obama will head back to the Louisiana Gulf Coast on Friday. On Thursday, he is scheduled to receive a report from Interior Secretary Salazar on the spill and will take questions from reporters on the situation. He is also expected to announce new, strengthened inspections for offshore drilling, the Washington Post reports.

All above emphasis was added by me.

Now Obama knows what Bush felt like in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Of course, while Bush and the GOP didn’t accept any campaign contributions from Katrina, the same was not the case between Obama, the Democrats and BP.

While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

Do tell…

Let’s shoot over to the Deepwater Horizon:

BP started pumping heavy mud into the leaking Gulf of Mexico well Wednesday and said everything was going as planned in the company’s boldest attempt yet to plug the gusher that has spewed millions of gallons of oil over the last five weeks.

BP hoped the mud could overpower the steady stream of oil, but chief executive Tony Hayward said it would be at least 24 hours before officials know whether the attempt has been successful. The company wants to eventually inject cement into the well to permanently seal it.

Go on…

Meanwhile, dozens of witness statements obtained by The Associated Press show a combination of equipment failure and a deference to the chain of command impeded the system that should have stopped the gusher before it became an environmental disaster.

What!? Obama’s good friends and contributors in BP’s Chain of Command were responsible, through negligence?

In a handwritten statement to the Coast Guard obtained by the AP, Transocean rig worker Truitt Crawford said: “I overheard upper management talking saying that BP was taking shortcuts by displacing the well with saltwater instead of mud without sealing the well with cement plugs, this is why it blew out.

At a Coast Guard hearing in New Orleans, Doug Brown, chief rig mechanic aboard the platform, testified that the trouble began at a meeting hours before the blowout, with a “skirmish” between a BP official and rig workers who did not want to replace heavy drilling fluid in the well with saltwater.

The switch presumably would have allowed the company to remove the fluid and use it for another project, but the seawater would have provided less weight to counteract the surging pressure from the ocean depths.

Brown said the BP official, whom he identified only as the “company man,” overruled the drillers, declaring, “This is how it’s going to be.” Brown said the top Transocean official on the rig grumbled, “Well, I guess that’s what we have those pinchers for,” which he took to be a reference to devices on the blowout preventer, the five-story piece of equipment that can slam a well shut in an emergency.

Can’t President Obama find any playmates and friends who don’t make him look bad on the basis of mere association?

Maybe not, because after all, birds of a feather flock together.

by @ 12:04 pm. Filed under Uncategorized

May 23, 2010

Surely, They’ll Eventually, Accidentally Get It Right

Since “the boss” is dedicated to keeping a watch on TSA (the Transportation Security Administration) and other security concerns and I’m minding the store, I’ve availed myself of some of the websites he left me that link to various security venues.

Hopefully, before someone else gets something right.

At any rate:

At least 16 people later linked to terror plots passed through U.S. airports undetected by federal officials who were on duty to spot suspicious behavior, according to a government report.

The airport-based officials were part of a federal behavior detection program designed to spot potential terrorists and others who pose a threat to aviation. The program, started in 2003, is one of 20 layers built into the nation’s aviation security system.

The Government Accountability Office questioned the scientific basis of the entire program in a report released Thursday. The program is dubbed SPOT - Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques. It was instituted by the Transportation Security Administration “without first validating the scientific basis for identifying passengers in an airport environment,” the GAO said.

“A scientific consensus does not exist on whether behavior detection principles can be reliably used for counterterrorism purposes,” the congressional auditors said.
The public version of the GAO report did not include the names of the 16 terror suspects who eluded detection. But among the 16 who slipped past the behavior detection officials at Newark Liberty International Airport, the report said, was an individual who “in August 2008 later pleaded guilty to providing material support to al-Qaida.”

Both Najibullah Zazi, the Denver-area shuttle driver who led the plot to blow up the New York City subway system, and an accomplice, Zarein Ahmedzay, pleaded guilty to providing material support to al-Qaida. Federal investigators said both men also traveled through the Newark airport in August 2008.

“TSA has bungled the development and deployment of a potentially important layer of aviation security,” said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., who requested the report. Mica, the top Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called on the Obama administration to reorganize the TSA so it can better carry out its mission.
Earlier this week, President Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate the current deputy director of the FBI to lead the TSA. Two previous nominees dropped out after concerns were raised about their backgrounds.

Between May 2004 and August 2008, behavior detection officers who work for the TSA have made about 1,100 arrests, but none were for terrorism, the GAO said. TSA spokesman Greg Soule said behavior detection officers at Orlando International Airport spotted a person in April 2008 who was carrying components and instructions for a pipe bomb in his luggage.

Soule said the SPOT program “is designed to look for passengers displaying behaviors that indicate they are trying to avoid detection.”

The agency did not agree with all the GAO’s findings.

“TSA strongly believes that behavior detection is a vital layer in its aviation security strategy. … Leaders within the community of behavior detection researchers agree,” Jerald Levine, the director of the Homeland Security Department’s GAO liaison office, said in a response included in the report.

On the Third Time’s A Charm circuit, we may finally see TSA get a qualified whip, though there may be a few questions that require answers prior to confirmation.

The F.B.I.’s bio of the man who may soon be the new TSA Pistolero in town is here.

Hopefully, as I said, they’ll get it right before that someone else does.

by @ 3:18 pm. Filed under TSA Concerns, Uncategorized

May 8, 2010

Mayhaps, Could It Be That The Pirates…

actually got the justice they deserved after all?

Heretofore, I was laboring under the impression, based on what I’d read, that these scalliwags (ARGH!) were going to end up being bound over to some mares-eat-oats liberal international court out of Kenya.

However, that was not to be.

The pirates seized by a Russian warship off the coast of Somalia have been released because of “imperfections” in international law, the Defense Ministry said Friday, a claim that sparked skepticism — and even suspicion the pirates might have been killed.

One can only hope.

Authorities initially said the pirates would be brought to Russia to face criminal charges for hijacking a Russian oil tanker. But Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Alexei Kuznetsov told The Associated Press on Friday that the pirates had been released.

Kuznetsov declined to elaborate on the purported legal flaws that prompted the release and it was unclear how the seizure of the tanker might be legally different from last year’s alleged hijacking of the Russian-crewed freighter Arctic Sea.

That vessel allegedly was seized by pirates in the Baltic Sea off Sweden and went missing for several days before a Russian warship tracked it down off West Africa. The eight alleged pirates were flown to Moscow to face eventual trial.

The Law of the Seas Convention, to which Russia is a signatory, says the courts of a country that seizes a pirated vessel on the high seas have the right to decide what penalties will be imposed.

My emphasis added, and that’s what I’m talkin’ about!.

It is the job of each government to protect its citizens and their, or said government’s property, right?

If I may note, through the Cold War years, a lot of entities, governments, terrorist organizations and insurrectionists, had no problem messing around, or worse, with most western nations, citizens and so forth. The Brits, the French, anybody who got in the way got revolution, terrorism, heartbreak of every description… But rarely the Soviets.

Why? Because they were known to retaliate harshly in response to attacks.

So perhaps Russia is continuing in the same “smite us on one cheek, we’ll smash you on the other” policy.

Looking out for their citizens.

When the Soviets captured Mujahedin guerillas during their war in Afghanistan thirty years ago, they didn’t use the GITMO approach, giving the prisoners Korans, religiously agreeable cuisine or an arrow on the cell floor showing, for prayer purposes, the direction of Mecca.

Au contraire, they beat them, tortured them brutally and generally treated them like bloody pieces of inconsequential meat.

I think that, if it is indeed the case that the Russians meted out a bullet in the back of the head and a push over the side to each of the captured pirates, they were using sound startegy and common sense by sending a clear message to the pirates’ colleagues who are still out there: Don’t mess with Russian vessels.

But what to do with pirates has become a murky problem. Some countries are wary of hauling in pirates for trial for fear of being saddled with them after they serve prison terms, and some propose that pirates taken to Kenya for trial.
Kuznetsov appeared to echo those concerns when asked why the pirates who seized the tanker were released.

“Why should we feed some pirates?” he asked. He did not give specifics of the pirates’ release, but the official news agency ITAR-Tass quoted a ministry source as saying they were “sent home,” unarmed and without navigational devices, in the small boats they had used to approach the tanker.

Which might mean: “They’ll possibly succumb to the vagaries of weather and the ocean, dying at sea, never to be seen again.”

Good!

by @ 12:24 pm. Filed under Global Security, Russia, Uncategorized