David C. Gorczynski, of Pennsylvania’s Occupy movements, was arrested and charged with two felonies for holding two signs: one saying “You’re being robbed” and another that said “Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob a country.” Gorczunski is being charged with bank robbery and “terroristic threatening”. He was released on $10,000 bail. Felonies for Free Speech.
What Bill of Rights?
"[E]ven as Obama said that “a decade of war is now ending” in his inauguration speech, a drone strike killed three suspected Al Qaeda members in Yemen. […]
If George W. Bush were doing this sort of thing, we’d be marching in the streets about it. Why does Obama get a free pass? (And on Bradley Manning? And on Guantanamo?) Anyone in the press want to ask the President about the legality & moral stickiness of drone strikes at his next press conference?"
kottke.org: Obama’s overlooked war and lethal Presidency (via hipsterlibertarian)
(via hipsterlibertarian)
Reps. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, both about to leave Congress, are teaming up to try to force the office of the President to release its legal justification for drone use, which so far has been entirely free of scrutiny, transparency, and accountability.
(Source: hipsterlibertarian, via the-altar)
Don’t let the state-media’s war propaganda either fool or spread to you the anti-Iranian disease that currently plagues America, for there is no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.
Iran is not building a nuclear weapon:
- According to the IAEA report, Iran is not using its nuclear capabilities for military purposes and has reduced its breakout capability
- According to the 2007 and 2011 National Intelligence Estimates Iran is currently not building a nuclear weapon.
- Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, Iran has the right as a sovereignty nation to enrich uranium as long as it is for peaceful purposes and they are open to intrusive IAEA inspections.
However, currently Iran is surrounded by unfriendly neighbors and is a constant victim of American-Israeli threats and acts of aggression. If the push towards war does not stop, Iran could very well use its nuclear capabilities to build a bomb for defensive purposes. If it is a bomb that the west does not want, then a policy of non-intervention is the only approach that makes strategic sense.
Sanctions:
Sanctions are an act of war. Or at the very least, in our case, are a significant step towards an American strike. For an example of this fact, one can look to the Iraq sanctions, which were used as precursor to war. The Obama Administration’s tough sanctions over Iran are not only inhumane, but are blatant aggression. They show that American is not willing to engage in diplomacy, the only way to prevent Iran from deciding to obtain nuclear weapons.
Take Note:
- Iran has stated that if they are attacked, they may then leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty giving them the capability to build nuclear weapons on demand.
- Many top Israeli security officials believe attacking Iran would be strategic suicide.
- The only reason Iran would build a nuclear weapon would be for defensive purposes, beings the Obama administration has taken a stance which will not tolerate a nuclear Iran — meaning Iran knows that it cannot build a nuclear weapon without being attacked by the world’s largest military superpower. However, if they feel they are going to be attacked anyways, a nuclear weapon would only make strategic sense in order to deter any invasion of their country.
- An Iranian Nuclear Weapon is no direct threat to American national security. The United States spends over 900 billion dollars a year on defense spending and is the world’s largest economic powerhouse, while Iran is a poor, middle-eastern country which can barely provide 10 billion a year for defense.
- Furthermore, the chances of Iran providing the nuclear weapon to Al-Qaeda are essentially nonexistent and the chances of them providing the weapon to any other terrorist organization are also almost nonexistent. Due to the negative international image, threats of tightened sanctions, and threats of war Iran currently suffers from, Iran would not find it beneficial to do such a thing. Not to mention that Iran would sacrifice all the perks of being a nuclear power.
- the state media has been claiming Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon since the 1980’s.
Conclusion:
Iran is No threat to American national security and is currently not building a nuclear weapon. These realities will continue if America if America changes its attitude towards foreign policy. The truly America foreign policy is that of non-intervention, where we trade, travel, and engage in friendship with all nations, yet refrain from military conflict.
Food Trucks Feed Those Hardest Hit By SandyAfter Hurricane Sandy ravaged much of New York and New Jersey, local food trucks were among the first volunteers to reach affected areas and feed people.
Grant Di Mille of Sweetery NYC said that the advocacy group NYC Food Truck Association reached out to its members as the scope of the disaster became clear. “They were looking for trucks with availability and enough fuel,” Di Mille says, “That was us.”
In total, 16 food trucks answered the call, bringing more than 25,000 free hot meals to the Rockaways, Staten Island, New Jersey, Brooklyn, and lower Manhattan.
“We’re serving pizza, soup, hot chocolate,” said Derek Kaye of Eddie’s Pizza, who explained that because a lot of the people who came to his truck in the Rockaways had been eating military-issue dehydrated food if they’d been eating at all, Kaye was “focusing on providing hot meals, something normal.”
Wafels & Dinges’s Thomas Begeest had similar experiences in the Rockaways and New Dorp on Staten Island. “There’s a huge need for coffee,” he says. “And these are family neighborhoods. People are taking five, six, seven waffles home to their families.”
Corporate sponsors like Jet Blue help offset costs for participating businesses, though the relief work is still keeping them from being on their regular rotations, and many of the volunteers have still been hard at work even when they’re not officially handing out food, like Kaye, who had driven to Connecticut at 1 in the morning on Saturday to get enough gas to keep the pizza truck going.
“It’s important to us to give back to the community,” he explains. “It’s great that we can.”
For those who want to give something back themselves, Kaye suggests contributing to the NYC Food Truck Association’s Indiegogo campaign. “The money goes directly to feeding people in the affected neighborhoods,” he explains.
“The trucks out there are making a very real difference,” Begeest says, “People are very grateful.”
Yet state and local governments continues to put blockades in their way
Global Warming Alert! No warming for 16 years
According to new data released last week, not only did “global warming” stop 16 years ago, but temperatures have been flat for about the same amount of time that they had initially rose prior to this period.
From the UK Daily Mail:
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
I don’t expect that those who promote climate change hysteria that is now a part of the culture in much of America, to suddenly change their minds about it. But the fact is, the data just isn’t on their side. So the next time you hear a AGW believer complain that neither candidate is taking the issue of climate change seriously, just know that it’s because it doesn’t exist.
Leaked Debate Agreement Shows Both Obama and Romney are Sniveling Cowards
21st-century-classical-liberal:
Time’s Mark Halperin has made himself useful for once by obtaining, and publishing,a copy of the 21-page memorandum of understanding that the Obama and Romney campaigns negotiated with the Commission on Presidential Debates establishing the rules governing this month’s presidential and vice presidential face-offs. The upshot: Both campaigns are terrified at anything even remotely spontaneous happening.
They aren’t permitted to ask each other questions, propose pledges to each other, or walk outside a “predesignated area.” And for the town-hall-style debate tomorrow night, the audience members posing questions aren’t allowed to ask follow-ups (their mics will be cut off as soon as they get their questions out). Nor will moderator Candy Crowley.
Most bizarrely, given the way the debates have played out, the rules actually appear to forbid television coverage from showing reaction shots of the candidates: “To the best of the Commission’s abilities, there will be no TV cut-aways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question or to a candidate who is not giving a closing statement while another candidate is doing so.” The “best of the Commission’s abilities” must be rather feeble, seeing as how almost every moment of the two debates so far was televised in split-screen, clearly showing shots of a “candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question.”
Which means some of the rules below that both campaigns stipulated to in a desperate attempt to wring any serendipity out of the events may be honored in the breach:
- “The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates.”
- “The candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges.”
- “At no time during the October 3 First Presidential debate shall either candidate move from his designated area behing the respective podium.”
- For the October 16 town-hall-style debate, “the moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate….”
- “The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member’s microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions.”
- “[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any…audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review.”
- “No candidate may reference or cite any specific individual sitting in a debate audience (other than family members) at any time during a debate.”
- For the town-hall debate: “Each candidate may move about in a pre-designated area, as proposed by the Commission and approved by each campaign, and may not leave that area while the debate is underway.”
Here’s the full document:
The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns
(Source: excitablehonky, via thecheekylibertarian)
Government health care in action: patients dying of starvation and thirst in British hospitals
This is the sad reality behind Great Britain’s much touted National Hospital Service: patients dying of thirst and starvation in the wards.
from the Telegraph:
The death toll was disclosed by the Government amid mounting concern over the dignity of patients on NHS wards.
They will also fuel concerns about care homes, as it was disclosed that eight people starved to death and 21 people died of thirst while in care.
Last night there were warnings that they must prompt action by the NHS and care home regulators to prevent further deaths among patients.
The Office for National Statistics figures also showed that:
* as well as 43 people who starved to death, 287 people were recorded by doctors as being malnourished when they died in hospitals;
* there were 558 cases where doctors recorded that a patient had died in a state of severe dehydration in hospitals;
* 78 hospital and 39 care home patients were killed by bedsores, while a further 650 people who died had their presence noted on their death certificates;
* 21,696 were recorded as suffering from septicemia when they died, a condition which experts say is most often associated with infected wounds.
The records, from the Office for National Statistics, follow a series of scandals of care of the elderly, with doctors forced to prescribe patients with drinking water or put them on drips to make sure they do not become severely dehydrated .
In a free market, any hospital with a reputation like this would be forced to close its doors when its patients chose another healthcare provider; but under a government-run system, failing hospitals like this continue to get taxpayer cash to keep its doors open. It is the natural end result to a government healthcare system and a glimpse into the US’s future if Obamacare isn’t overturned quickly.
(via bitchbetterhavemyhunny)
Federal Government poised to dump $197 million into another solar company
The Obama administration doesn’t have a very good track record with its energy investments, particularly solar companies. The big one we all know about is Solyndra, which went belly-up and cost the American taxpayers $529 million. But there were others too:
- Ener1: cost taxpayers $118.5 million then filed for bankruptcy
- Beacon Power: cost taxpayers $43 million then filed for bankruptcy
- Amonix: cost taxpayers $5.9 million, then laid off 200 of its employees
- Abound Solar: cost taxpayers $70 million then filed for bankruptcy
I could easily go on, but I think you get the picture. It’s worth noting that 80% of the Obama administrations “green energy loans” went to donors to his campaign.
Now, it appears the Obama administration is at it again and is prepared to lend almost $200 million to yet another solar company. The outlook for this one is shaky at best.
from Reuters:
A tiny solar company named SoloPower will flip the switch on production at a U.S. factory Thursday, a major step toward allowing it to tap a $197 million government loan guarantee awarded under the same controversial program that supported failed panel maker Solyndra.
SoloPower has initiated a strategy to differentiate it from struggling commodity players in the solar panel industry. Still, there are several similarities between SoloPower and Solyndra - which became a lightning rod in the U.S. Presidential campaign this year after taking in more than $500 million in government loans and then filing for bankruptcy.
Like Solyndra, SoloPower is a Silicon Valley start-up and uses the same non-traditional raw material in its solar panels. And, like its now-defunct peer, SoloPower is one of just four U.S. panel manufacturers to clinch loan guarantees under the Department of Energy’s $35 billion program to support emerging clean energy technologies. The DOE payments to SoloPower will come on top of the $56.5 million SoloPower has collected in loans, tax credits and incentives from the state of Oregon and the city of Portland, where its first factory will be located.
And, perhaps most importantly, SoloPower is entering the market at a time of cutthroat competition from cheaper solar products made in China.
Here we go again. What was that saying about the definition of insanity?
Yeah. Should work this time.
Barack Obama, moments ago: ”I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.”
Hope and change! In other news, Obama’s black-bagging law—the one that allows the government to kidnap Americans and disappear them into military detention such as Guantanamo Bay—has been blocked by a federal judge, saying that it violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. Is this considered an Obama achievement?
- Jayel Aheram
"
Barack Obama did win in 2008 running on a platform more liberal than the one he has pursued in the interim. Perhaps he couldn’t move any farther left on immigration or health care and stay viable. But on national security, executive power, and civil-liberties issues, he campaigned and won handily repudiating Bush-era policies, only to govern to the “right” of the Bush Administration.
There wasn’t a political imperative to do so. And I’m tired of that truth being obscured.
Conor Friedersdorf (via soupsoup)
(via tylerferrari)
Survivors of three Americans killed by targeted drone attacks in Yemen last year sued top-ranking members of the United States government, alleging Wednesday they illegally killed the three, including a 16-year-old boy, in violation of international human rights law and the U.S. Constitution.
“The government has killed three Americans. It should account for its actions. This case gives us an opportunity to do that,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a press call.
The suit, (.pdf) being litigated by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, seeks unspecified damages and highlights the government’s so-called unmanned drone “targeted killing” program that the ACLU and the center maintain have killed thousands, including hundreds of innocent bystanders overseas.
The suit, the first of its kind, alleges the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen, prohibiting the use of lethal force unless “at the time it is applied, lethal force is a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.” The case directly challenges the government’s decision to kill Americans without judicial scrutiny.
At bottom, Jaffer said, “the question is whether the government is justified in killing without charging them or trying them for anything.”
The suit is brought on behalf of cleric Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who the Obama administration claimed was a recruiter and planner for al-Qaida, who was known for his blog, Facebook page and YouTube videos. The U.S. authorities claim he had contacts with the 9/11 hijackers, the underwear bomber and others. He was killed Sept. 30 last year. Also killed was Samir Khan, the editor of the English magazine Inspire, which allegedly was published by Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
Two weeks later, the cleric’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, was killed in a separate Yemen attack.
The defendants include Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, U.S. Navy Adm. William H. McRaven and U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Votel.
Citing U.S. officials, the Washington Post has reported that the son and Khan were not intended targets.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond for comment. The administration refuses to release the Justice Department memo that legally justifies targeting Americans, and according to the New York Times, President Obama approves or denies who gets added to the “kill list.”
(via extremecapitalism)
More Hypocrisy: Obama’s top fundraising bundler is a Bain Capital outsourcer
Oh, this is just getting ridiculous. First we find out that Obama has $450,00 invested in companies that outsource jobs overseas. Now, even as the Obama campaign continues to accuse Mitt Romney of outsourcing jobs while at Bain, we find out that it wasn’t Romney at the helm during the period in question- it was Obama’s top Bundler Jonathan Levine.
from ABC News:
The Obama campaign’s latest attack tells the story of workers at an Indiana office supply company who lost their jobs after a Bain-owned company named American Pad & Paper (Ampad) took over their company and drove it out of business.
Here’s what the Obama Web video doesn’t mention: A top Obama donor and fundraiser had a much more direct tie to the controversy and actually served on the board of directors at Richardson, Texas-based Ampad, which makes office paper products.
Jonathan Lavine is a long-time Bain Capital executive and co-owner of the Boston Celtics. He is also one of President Obama’s most prolific fundraisers. He has alreadyraised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaignthis election, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Lavine started working for Bain in 1993. He was one of three Bain executives who served on the board of directors of Ampad for several years, a post he held until 1999. Here’s anews release announcing his departurefrom the company in April 1999.
Lavine’s placement on the board of Ampad suggests he had a more direct role than Romney in the series of events surrounding the layoffs, labor disputes and eventual bankruptcy of the Marion, Ind., factory featured in the Obama campaign video.
Obama’s narrative continues to crumble, and Democrat hypocrisy plays no small part.
We first read about this story on Gateway Pundit where Jim Hoft is doing some of the best Conservative politics blogging out there.
NO SUCH THING AS CRONY CAPITALISM. MOVE ALONG. DOESN’T EXIST.
Broken Record: Obama uses same excuse for poor jobs report over 30 times
The Romney camp has done a little digging in the White House archives and found a pretty redundant excuse for poor jobs reports.
June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/06/employment-situation-june)
May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/01/employment-situation-may)
April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/04/employment-situation-april)
March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/06/employment-situation-march)
February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/09/employment-situation-february)
January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january)
December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/employment-situation-december)
November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/02/employment-situation-november)
October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/04/employment-situation-october)
September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/07/employment-situation-september)
August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/02/employment-situation-august)
July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/05/employment-situation-july)
June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/08/employment-situation-june)
May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/03/employment-situation-may)
April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april)
March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/01/employment-situation-march)
February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/04/employment-situation-february)
January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/04/employment-situation-january)
December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december)
November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/03/employment-situation-november)
October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/11/05/employment-situation-october)
September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/08/employment-situation-september)
July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/06/employment-situation-july)
August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/03/employment-situation-august)
June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june)
May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/04/employment-situation-may)
April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/07/employment-situation-april)
March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/02/employment-situation-march)
January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/05/employment-situation-january)
November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.” (LINK: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/04/employment-situation-november)
Ok, so one bad jobs report doesn’t provide any context. How about 30? Can we start reading into it yet?
This is the copy/paste administration.
I hardly even believed this was real. Oh my god. Obama. No. No, no. You’re doing it wrong.
