Thursday, July 11, 2013

Has ‘Caucasian’ Lost Its Meaning?

New York Times ^ | July 6, 2013 | Shaila Dewan

AS a racial classification, the term Caucasian has many flaws, dating as it does from a time when the study of race was based on skull measurements and travel diaries. It has long been entirely unmoored from its geographical reference point, the Caucasus region. Its equivalents from that era are obsolete — nobody refers to Asians as “Mongolian” or blacks as “Negroid.”
And yet, there it was in the recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. The plaintiff, noted Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his majority opinion, was Caucasian.
To me, having covered the South for many years, the term seems like one of those polite euphemisms that hides more than it reveals. There is no legal reason to use it. It rarely appears in federal statutes, and the Census Bureau has never put a checkbox by the word Caucasian. (White is an option.)
The Supreme Court, which can be more colloquial, has used the term in only 64 cases, including a pair from the 1920s that reveal its limitations. In one, the court ruled that a Japanese man could not become a citizen because, although he may have been light-skinned, he was not Caucasian. In the other, an Indian was told that he could not become a citizen because, although he may have been technically Caucasian, he was certainly not white. (A similar debate erupted more recently when the Tsarnaev brothers, believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing, were revealed to be Muslims from the Caucasus.)
The use of Caucasian to mean white was popularized in the late 18th century by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German anthropologist, who decreed that it encompassed Europeans and the inhabitants of a region reaching from
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Nutri. Conventional Wisdom Takes It on Chin: Salt Harmless, Fish Oil Hikes Risk of Prostate Cancer ^ | 7-11-2013 | Rush Limbaugh


RUSH: Here it is. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta admit a long-standing error. "There is no benefit in reducing salt." Again, from the Centers for Disease Control: "There is no benefit in reducing salt." They are correcting a long-standing error.

These are the kind of stories I just eat up. I just lick these stories like a salt lick. I love these stories. I just love it when conventional wisdom is turned upside down, when the food Nazis are exposed as the deceitful frauds that they are.

"A recent report commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed the health benefits of reducing salt intake and the take-home message is --" dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut "--that salt, in the quantities consumed by most Americans, is no longer considered a substantial health hazard." In fact, "It may be that we’re better off with more salt than less, up to 2 or even 3 teaspoons per day. How did it happen that such standard medical advice drifted astray, then went uncorrected for so long?"

How did that happen? How does that happen? How do all of these food myths get started? How do all of these health myths get started? And as I ask again and again, how long is it going to be until everybody realizes that the people pushing this stuff are political, are pushing a political agenda? Now, I realize some of you might be saying, "Rush, come on, now, couldn't they just have made a mistake? What in the world would be political about telling people not to eat salt?" Now, you might be thinking that I think that that's an example of liberalism. And that's not what I'm saying. It's about control, folks. It's about power.

It's about control. It's about manipulation and dictating the way you live and forcing it on you and everybody else, rather than just letting you live your life as you want to, letting you enjoy the things that you like without being penalized, stigmatized, humiliated, or what have you. Just yesterday we learned that all of these drugs for ADD, don't make a bit of difference. Your young boys that are hyperactive, in your mind, so you gotta slow 'em down so they can focus and learn better, it doesn't work. You ever stop to think that maybe Attention Deficit Disorder is something that exists for reasons other than improving the life of your kid?

How many people have kids, turns out they have a little boy, little boy's rambunctious, "Oh, my God, this kid's driving me crazy!" Maybe you shouldn'ta had the kid in the first place if you weren't prepared to deal with what little boys and little kids do. So here comes a new disease, and it's got a new drug, and it's designed to calm your kid down and make him, quote, unquote, more normal, i.e., more manageable. And, by the way, your kid's gonna learn better, too. Turns out that wasn't true.

Not only, folks, are you ready? It's not just salt. Try this. "Taking health supplements with omega-3 fatty acids--" I hate to tell you this. It turns out "Taking health supplements with omega-3 fatty acids can increase the chances of contracting prostate cancer, according to new research. Omega-3 fatty acids, found naturally in oily fish and lauded for their anti-inflammatory properties, were found to increase the risk of high-grade disease by 71 percent."
Now, how many people have been out shoveling omega-3 pills or however you take the stuff because the food Nazis have created a panic and a crisis that you gotta have some of this stuff. Fish is much more healthy than meat, of course, don't you know, and anything associated with fish is much better for you and much healthier than anything else you can eat. So people, nobody wants to die, shovel this stuff in, and they now discovered...

"A US team of scientists compared blood samples from 834 men diagnosed with prostate cancer and 1,393 participants without the disease. High blood concentrations of all three omega-3 fatty acids commonly found in supplements EPA, DPA and DHA were linked to the findings. Senior report author Dr Alan Kristal told Sky News: 'We looked at the marker in blood for the intake of these fatty acids and we found to our surprise that it was associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. If you took an omega-3 fatty acid pill, or a fish oil pill every day, you are at the highest risk group.'

"Writing in the online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the scientists said the evidence suggested that the fatty acids played a role in prostate cancer development. People tempted to up their intake of omega-3, particularly by means of supplements, 'should consider its potential risks.' Further research was needed to uncover the mechanisms that might cause omega-3 to drive prostate cancer, said the researchers.
Nutritionist Nicole Berberian told Sky News: 'The fact is that just from this snapshot ... we can't actually say cause of effect, so there is a long way to go before we can say that the cause of this correlation is the actual intake of oily fish. So as yet, it is not a cause to panic.'"

But they have found a correlation. They haven't found the cause yet, but in a sample of thousands, they have found that prostate cancer is much more prevalent in people that have been taking these omega-3 fatty acid supplements.

And back to this. "A recent report commissioned by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed the health benefits of reducing salt intake," and the message is that salt is no longer considered a substantial health hazard, and, in fact, we may be better off with more salt than less. Now, it would be easy for me to sit here, nah-nah-nah-nah, 'cause I'm gonna tell you the truth, folks, I don't pay attention to any of this health stuff. I don't respond to fads, of any kind, I don't care what the fad is. I'm not a fad, and I don't do fads. I didn't avoid oat bran when it was said to be a killer. I never avoided coffee. I never avoided eggs. I didn't avoid fat. I didn't do any of this stuff, because they don't know.

It's all political. It's all rooted in the fact that I distrust liberals, and every one of these groups is a liberal group that is doing what they're doing as a way of eating. This is how they live. They live on grants. And I happen to know this, too. Ask anybody that does a newsletter about the stock market, and they will tell you the best way to goose subscriptions is to forecast a disaster, to forecast a crash, to forecast crisis. Well, the food Nazi people have figured this out. X is gonna kill you, and you've got their attention. And maybe you'll donate to their cause. And maybe you'll become an evangel and you'll start telling everybody else to stop doing that stuff and maybe these people have got something against the meat industry for political reasons and they're just trying to make you think that they're independently unbiased, all they're interested in is your health.

Remember all this Oprah business and these people trying to get everybody hog-tied into not eating beef for a while on the basis it was gonna destroy the planet, that eating beef resulted in or caused all of these cattle to graze, and they were eating all the grass, and somehow this was causing global warming. Don't tell me this stuff is not political. It's all political. All of science is become politicized. All of education's become politicized. All of the news media's political. You point to me something that isn't. The Catholic Church, in certain elements, has become politicized. It was taken in by the notion that welfare states equal charity, and socialism equals charity. So they became big believers in that stuff. I mean, you can't avoid it.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is succeeding in banning coconut oil, which is one of the most healthful oils you can consume, and they won't let you buy it. And all these people have to do is come up with a logo, get a fax machine, fax out a press release, the media will cover it because they will report crisis and panic and impending disaster and doom. They never tell you when an airplane lands safely. It's no big deal. I never avoided fast food, and there has been a movement against that. You take your pick. Exercise, ditto. And look at all the conflicting evidence there is about exercise.

All I've done is live. I didn't even go in for this moderation business, folks. If I like something, I like it, until I get tired of it, and I move on to something else that I like. I'm not advocating replicate me, don't misunderstand, I'm just telling you that I just know how much better everybody would be if they understood that everything like this, that all of this originates from people of a left-wing political persuasion. And of course they'll tell you that they're just interested in compassion and helping people and improving people's lives and all of that, and I would contend to you that that's the least of what they end up doing. Anyway, forget all that 'cause I know that it's probably thinking that I can't bring up anything without adding politics to it, but I'm telling you it's undeniable.

All you need to know is, have all the salt you want, it isn't a problem. And I, by the way, just so you know, I have never reduced my salt intake over the course of my life because of what namby-pamby, pestering little scientist said. Science has been corrupted, too. Look at global warming. If something needs more salt, then by God, I put it on there. Life, we only have one, and it's not meant to be spent in denial every damn minute of every day. Certainly not spent in denial because of a bunch of meddling leftists trying to tell everybody else how to live.

I mean, look at Michelle Obama. She's all of a sudden the nutrition expert in the world, the nutrition expert in this country? Based on what? That she's a liberal and that she cares about people, and that she loves people, and therefore she only has everybody's best interests at heart, including the little children. Well, the little children eating her menu are starving. And because they're starving, they're going home and they're gorging on stuff that people might think is not good for them.

AP story, March 17th, 2010. "Michelle Obama Urges Food Companies to Cut the Fat, Salt and Sugar." Okay. Well, she's the first lady. She cares about people. So we must do it. Not me. Sorry. I don't care who says it. I don't care if it was Reagan's committee on physical fitness. Screw 'em. Everything's politicized. From the article. "Michelle Obama is urging the nation's largest food companies --" that means demanding, by the way. She's the first lady. Barack's her husband. You don't urge; she demands "-- the nation's largest food companies to speed up efforts to make healthier foods and reduce marketing of unhealthy foods to children." I've got a story, folks, there's no way I can tell you about this. I'm gonna have to provide the link for you, because it prints out to 18 pages. I found it today.

The premise of this story -- well, there are many premises -- but one of the primary premises of this story is that the processed food industry holds the key to healthful lifestyles and eating, not the organic. This is a long story about the corruption of the food industry by the whole foods bunch, not the brand, but the wholesome, natural, organic, all that, is a corruption of the food industry rooted in competition. The processed food guys are competitors of the organic food guys. The organic food guys, like anybody, they are Samsung, and the processed food guys are Apple, and they're trying to wipe each other out.

The author of this story makes the case that the key to improving diets and healthful intake for the vast majority of people probably lies in the processed food industry.


RUSH: It's from The Atlantic, "How Junk Food Can End Obesity," how the processed food industry can lead to the end of obesity. It's the exact opposite of everything you've been led to believe. "Popular food producers, fast-food chains among them, are already applying various tricks and technologies to create less caloric and more satiating versions of their junky fare that nonetheless retain much of the appeal of the originals, and could be induced to go much further."

The guy's point is that with the popularity and the ubiquity of processed foods, the fact that people love them and that they're relatively cheap (in certain places, anyway), it's a golden opportunity to end obesity and and that people in that business are already making moves in that direction. I just love turning things up down, 180 degrees out of phase. Eat all the salt you want. The CDC admits it's been an error all of these decades. (interruption) Okay, so... (interruption) All right, so... (interruption)

Okay, Snerdley said, "Well, what if this is an error and then they come back five years later...?" You know what? How many of you overdose on salt anyway, is the point. They've got everybody believing that adding salt to anything is gonna kill them. It's absurd! Just live. If you want some salt on something, put it on there. It isn't gonna kill you, is the point. Nobody's talking about shaking a whole canister of Morton Salt on your steak. Just don't be afraid of it. You want to put salt on something? Add it. Ditto, sugar. Add it.

Nobody's talking here about the whole salt shaker.


RUSH: Here is a pull quote from that long, long Atlantic story. "In fact, these roundly demonized companies could do far more for the public's health in five years than the wholesome-food movement is likely to accomplish in the next 50. But will the wholesome-food advocates let them?" You know, the "wholesome-food advocates" are not just gonna sit down and let this happen -- and who are the "wholesome-food advocates"?

Well, the militant vegetarians, and all these people that are not content to eat the way they want. Look at Mayor Doomberg. What is this guy doing? Folks, do not try to tell me this stuff is not politicized. Everywhere you look, the left and liberals -- I don't care how seemingly innocent and nice they are -- they're trying to tell you how to live. They are not content to live by virtue of their own choices. They have to force their choices on you. And it's not just food, it's everything.

It's the way they vote; it's the way they look at cultural issues. You have to do everything the way they do it, and if you don't it's not enough that you have freedom to disagree. They are going to try to eliminate your point of view. They don't want to be confronted by people who do not conform -- and they will use coercion, force, whatever to get you to conform. The worst practitioners of that, of course, are liberal politicians, elected officials. There's a story today about San Francisco.

There's a restaurant in San Francisco that apparently specializes in bacon, and some of the leftists (Who else would it be?) in the neighborhood are trying to shut down the restaurant because they don't like the smell of bacon outside the restaurant. Don't tell me this stuff isn't political. See, it's not enough to say, "Okay, there's a restaurant specializes in bacon." These people don't like it. It's not enough that they don't go there. Fine, they don't have to go. They want to shut the place down. They want to make it so that you can't go in there.

They want to make it so that the people that run the place can't serve bacon, can't prepare it, because they don't like the smell of it. I'm saying, it's none of their damn business. They can not eat it and that's it. But, no. They have to force it. It's like the anti-smoking Nazis. We've had stories of people like this. I think one was from Montgomery County, Maryland. A woman tried to claim that somebody smoking in an apartment 300 feet from her house, with everybody's windows closed, sent smoke into her house.

She tried to claim she could smell the smoke and wanted that woman's smoking to be stopped. She was in her house with the windows closed! The smoker was in an apartment 300 feet away, a football field away. There was no way she could smell that woman's smoke. She knew the woman in that apartment did smoke (or the guy, whoever it was) and it wasn't enough that she didn't smoke. She wanted to make sure he didn't. That's who they are. All of this stuff is political, or the vast, vast majority of it is.

I put the link to the Atlantic story at It's up there now.

Young illegals to receive white-glove, expedited treatment

WND ^ | July 10, 2013 | Aaron Klein

Immigration bill contradicts claim they must go to 'back of the line'
An estimated 1.76 million illegal aliens could be granted expedited permanent residency status under the immigration reform bill, a WND review of the legislation has found.
One of the key selling points used by proponents of the bill is that so-called undocumented aliens would have to go to the “back of the line” – meaning they would not receive priority or gain advantage over immigrants in the country legally and waiting for an immigration decision.
President Obama himself stated last January, “We’ve got to lay out a path – a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That’s only fair.”
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., stated on Sean Hannity’s Fox News television program last January: “Yes, not only do they go to the back of the line and wait behind everybody who applied before them the right way. When their turn comes up they have to qualify for the visa that they apply for, not a special pathway.”
However, the immigration reform bill allows for a “streamlined” application process for the illegal aliens covered under Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s June 2012 memorandum on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
The bill states: “The Secretary may adopt streamlined procedures for applicants for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status under this section who were granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals pursuant to the Secretary’s memorandum of June 15, 2012.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The American economy is eroding the American job

Washington Post ^ | 07/11/2013 | Harold Meyerson

Is the full-time American job going the way of the dodo? The signs aren’t exactly heartening.
Consider the jobs report released Friday. The United States added 195,000 new jobs in June, it said, including 322,000 new part-time jobs — a number that comprises only part-timers who want full-time work but can’t find it. Assuming my grade-school arithmetic skills haven’t completely eroded, that suggests that the number of full-time jobs actually declined.
Critics of Obamacare have a ready explanation: The 30-hour-a-week cutoff of the now-postponed employer mandate — which requires many employers to either provide health-care coverage for employees who work at least that much or to pay a penalty — was compelling employers to reduce workers’ hours. That mandate, the Wall Street Journal editorialized, gave businesses “an incentive to hire more part-time workers.”
If the employer mandate really were the problem, then the lot of the American worker wouldn’t look so grim. There is, to be sure, much anecdotal evidence that some employers are cutting workers’ hours to avoid the mandate. A closer look at the long-term rise of part-time work, however, makes clear that the decline of working hours and the rise of low-wage work reflect structural changes in the U.S. economy.
Of the 195,000 jobs created in June, fully 75,000 came in “Leisure and Hospitality” — Labor Department-speak for hotels, restaurants, fast-food joints and bars. Workers in this sector averaged just 26.1 hours a week — a figure that hasn’t changed in the past 12 months, even as Obamacare’s deadlines drew nigh. Thirty-seven thousand retail jobs were added, and these workers put in, on average, 31.3 hours a week. Workers in manufacturing, by contrast, had full-time jobs, averaging 40.9 hours a week — but 6,000 manufacturing jobs were eliminated in June.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Lois Lerner's big mouth

American Thinker ^ | 07/11/2013 | Thomas Lifson

Lois Lerner is a nasty piece of work, and one aspect of her arrogance could well be her undoing. She enjoyed wielding her power so much that she boasted about it, and in doing so in a 2011 interview with Business Week, she conceded a point that could be used to prove criminal culpability. Patrick Frey, who writes Patterico's Pontifications, uncovered the incriminating crowing:
A reader sends a very interesting tidbit buried in a November 17, 2011 article about the IRS and not-for-profit universities. The article is about the IRS making inquiries into "whether schools improperly claimed tax-exempt status for taxable businesses." At the end of the article is this fascinating quote:
Lois Lerner, the IRS's director of tax-exempt organizations who is overseeing the investigation, says many schools are rethinking how and what they report to the government. Receiving a thick questionnaire from the IRS, she says, is a "behavior changer."

Frey provides a timeline, noting the bragging took place months after the initiation of the targeting of conservatives and tea parties. Ed Morrissey explains the implication in the Fiscal Times:

The targeting of conservative groups by the tax-exempt unit Lerner ran also used the "thick questionnaire" tactic, which Lerner brags is a form of intimidation.  An entertaining timeline of the IRS targeting scandal compiled by Freedom Works, which supports and trains Tea Party activists and groups, shows Lerner found out about the targeting by June 27, 2011 at the latest, and had initiated an audit of the office and its "be on the lookout" (BOLO) list used for the targeting.
That resulted in a broader BOLO being put into use, and five months later, Lerner is bragging about the "behavior changer" effect of IRS demands for extensive information.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Will Republicans continue to sanction the lawlessness of Barack Obam ^ | JULY 11TH, 2013 | Doug Book, editor

Last Tuesday, Barack Obama decided that enforcement of the employer mandate, one of the key provisions of his namesake ObamaCare legislation, would be delayed for one full year, until January of 2015.
Three days later, a couple of reporters discovered in a 600 page document dump that anyone enrolling at an ObamaCare exchange would be permitted to provide personal information according to the “honor system.” No verification of income, employment or current availability of health insurance would be necessary.
Apparently Barack had acquired a profound faith in the American people completely unknown to any of his far-left associates.
The media is portraying these “sudden” acknowledgements of the unworkability of the Affordable Care Act as a simple show of kindness and thoughtful consideration on the part of their White House hero.
Barack was giving big business a break with his surprise delay of an employer mandate which would have levied heavy fines on any company which had not insured its workforce. The complexity of ObamaCare and its monthly reporting demands were just too much for the likes of U.S. Steel and Exxon Mobil to digest over only a three year period!
And quite by coincidence, without the mandatory monthly employee reports which ObamaCare had demanded the nations’ employers provide via the employer mandate, information necessary to the proper enrollment of individuals into the Affordable Care Act would just not be available.
No way to verify income, employment or whether John Doe and his family had healthcare coverage at work.
Anyone skeptical of the intentions of a Democrat Party which had to pass ObamaCare into law before interested folks could find out what was in it, might suggest that much if not all of this had been planned for months. What exactly has the president done?...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Civil Libertarians' Hypocrisy ^ | July 11, 2013 | Jonah Goldberg

Self-proclaimed civil libertarians are up in arms over the National Security Agency's massive database containing information about whom we call and what we do on the Web. Defenders of the program say, "So what?" Unless you're a terrorist, no one in the government will ever bother to access that information.
That's not good enough, say civil libertarians.
"At least 850,000 people have security clearances that give them access to this information," Tiffiniy Cheng of Fight for the Future recently wrote on The Huffington Post. "That's the size of Boston. Imagine if they leak information about a politician or business leaders' personal life -- what about a prominent activist? The opportunities for abuse and blackmail are endless; despite what some members of Congress have claimed, the history of government surveillance programs is riddled with abuses."
Farhad Manjoo of online Slate magazine agrees. The "fundamental problem" with the NSA's surveillance program is that it's amassing an all-too-tempting stockpile of information. "Someone has access to that data, and that someone might not be as noble as (Edward) Snowden. He could post everything online. He could sell it to identity thieves. He could blackmail you. Or he might blackmail politicians, businesspeople, judges, TSA agents, or use the data in some other nefarious way."
One needn't be a privacy absolutist, never mind a paranoid conspiracy theorist, to believe that this is a legitimate concern. One can even support the NSA's PRISM program and still want significant safeguards against abuse.
What I have a hard time understanding, however, is how one can get worked up into a near panic about an overreaching national security apparatus while also celebrating other government expansions into our lives, chief among them the hydrahead leviathan of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). The 2009 stimulus created a health database that will store all your health records. The Federal Data Services Hub will record everything bureaucrats deem useful, from your incarceration record and immigration status to whether or not you had an abortion or were treated for depression or erectile dysfunction.
In other words, while the NSA can tell if you searched the Web for "Viagra," the Hub will know if you were actually prescribed the medication and for how long. Yes, there are rules for keeping that information private, but you don't need security clearance or a warrant to get it.
Then there's the IRS. We already have evidence of abuse there. For instance, the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, had its tax returns and private donor information leaked to the news media last year, presumably in order to embarrass Mitt Romney (he gave the group $10,000) and others during the presidential election.
And yet, worrying about NSA abuse is cast as high-minded while worrying about Obamacare or the IRS is seen as paranoid. Why?
Part of the answer surely stems from the fact the progressive dream of government-guaranteed health care is fashionable, while opposition to it is perceived by liberal elites as backward or villainous.
But it goes deeper than that. There are basically two visions of oppressive government, the Orwellian and the Huxleyan. In George Orwell's "1984," the dystopia is a totalitarian police state, where everyone is snooped on and bullied. In Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," most people are happy because the government takes care of them.
Culturally, Americans of all stripes recoil at anything that seems like a step on the slippery slope toward the Orwellian state. But we lack the same reflexive response against things that smack of the Huxleyan.
Sure, we make fun of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's campaigns against smoking, fatty foods, large beverages and the like. And yes, we mock the excesses of political correctness and a government hell-bent on doing things for "our own good." But it's worth noting that Bloomberg & Co. tend to win their battles in no small part because they're supposed to be champions of progress.
Our Constitution -- and any definition of a legitimate government -- requires the state to protect its citizens from threats such as foreign terrorism. Governments can go too far fulfilling that duty, of course, conjuring valid concerns of an Orwellian police state. And we routinely have healthy debates over where that line is. If only we could have similarly healthy debates about a government with an eternal license to do things for our own good.

The shale gas revolution: We have not yet begun to boom!

Hot Air ^ | July 10, 2013 | Erika Johnsen

As I’ve now argued many times over, the Obama administration is extravagantly fond of citing statistics about how our oil imports are way down while our domestic oil production is way up, with the implicit suggestion being that their policies somehow deserve the credit for these phenomena. See, they really are about an “all of the above” energy strategy and you can’t say that they’re anti-oil or anti-fossil fuel, because America is currently experiencing an economic and employment boom via domestic oil and gas production!
In fact, however, much of the credit for the current oil-and-gas boom and our decreased reliance on foreign sources belongs to production on state and private lands, and the Obama administration still has plenty of policies in place actively restricting permitting to the federal lands and waters to which plenty of companies would really like more access. Yes, we’re experiencing an oil-and-gas economic boom, but many of the Obama administration’s policies are coming at the direct opportunity cost of an even bigger boom.
It’s a similar story with natural gas and the many companies who are awaiting on pending applications to export the stuff in its liquified version. Companies are only freely allowed to sell and ship liquified natural gas to countries with whom the United States already has special, specific free trade agreements; but obviously, and as with any industry or economic sector, natural-gas companies would very much like to be allowed expand the market and reap the subsequent economic benefits.
Certain Democrats in Congress — who happen to have various manufacturing and environmental interests, with their own very definite stake in the domestic price of natural gas, vociferously egging them on....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

We Hold These Truths...

Take Two!


At 25 Weeks...


I'm Sorry

Thanks John!


The Only One!

Yes We Scan!




Move Along!

How taxpayers paid for DOJ unit to 'support protests after killing of Trayvon Martin'

Telegraph ^ | 7/10/2010 | David Martosko

Documents published online Wednesday by a conservative watchdog group show that the Community Relations Service, an arm of the U.S. Justice Department, spent taxpayer dollars to help organize and implement plans for the initial string of rallies in Sanford, Florida following the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
The protests were openly hostile to George Zimmerman, the volunteer neighborhood watch organizer who killed Martin, 17, after a struggle. Zimmerman is currently on trial in a Florida courtroom, charged with second-degree murder.

(Rev. Al Sharpton (C) spoke at a 'Justice for Trayvon' rally along with Tracy Martin (R) and Sybrina Fulton (2nd L), parents of slain teenager Trayvon Martin, on March 22, 2012 )


(George Zimmerman, shown in an evidence photo with injuries he sustained during the confrontation that ended Trayvon Martin's life, is charged with second-degree murder)


(Thousands of posters were printed demanding Zimmerman's arrest for killing Martin. These signs were funded by the Service Employees International Union local 1199, a health care workers union)


(Trayvon Martin supporters marched before a town hall meeting about the shooting on March 26, 2012. Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson and NAACP president Benjamin Jealous all spoke at the event)
The agency's Florida activities did include providing 'technical assistance' to law enforcement and city managers in Sanford.
The Orlando Sentinel reported earlier in the same week that the DOJ's Community Relations Service 'helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief...'
The Sentinel also reported that Community Relations Service employees arranged a 40-mile police escort for students calling for the police chief's ouster who were traveling from Daytona Beach to Sanford.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Big Government Implodes

Wall Street Journal ^ | 7-11-2013 | DANIEL HENNINGER CONNECT

Mark July 3, 2013, as the day Big Government finally imploded.

July 3 was the quiet afternoon that a deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy announced in a blog post that the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate would be delayed one year. Something about the "complexity of the requirements." The Fourth's fireworks couldn't hold a candle to the sound of the U.S. government finally hitting the wall.
Since at least 1789, America's conservatives and liberals have argued about the proper role of government. Home library shelves across the land splinter and creak beneath the weight of books arguing the case for individual liberty or for government-led social justice. World Wrestling smackdowns are nothing compared with Hayek vs. Rawls.
Maybe we have been listening to the wrong experts. Philosophers and pundits aren't going to tell us anything new about government. The one-year rollover of ObamaCare because of its "complexity" suggests it's time to call in the physicists, the people who study black holes and death stars. That's what the federal government looks like after expanding ever outward for the past 224 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Government-Approved Race Riots!

FrontPage Magazine ^ | July 11, 2013 | Matthew Vadum

The Obama administration deployed government-paid community organizers to Sanford, Florida after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin last year in order to foment racial tensions, newly released government documents show.

The news came as the Obama administration publicly pretended to be concerned at the prospect of ugly race riots breaking out across America in the increasingly likely event that defendant George Zimmerman will be acquitted in the case. Race riots benefit the Left, and in particular the Democratic Party, by riling up its staunchest voting bloc.
The Community Relations Service (CRS), a small office within the U.S. Department of Justice, sent taxpayer-funded political agitators to Sanford after 17-year-old Martin was killed Feb. 26, 2012, during a physical confrontation with community crime watch volunteer George Zimmerman. For a month and a half after Martin’s death, local police declined to press charges against Zimmerman because they believed the criminal case against him was weak.
DOJ documents provided to Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the weeks before Zimmerman was charged, CRS expended thousands of dollars to help organize marches in which participants exacerbated racial tensions and loudly demanded that he be prosecuted.
According to the documentation, CRS employees were involved in “marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain”; providing “support for protest deployment in Florida”; rendering “technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31”; and providing “technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
In April, CRS “set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,” the document dump revealed.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton condemned the Obama administration’s meddling.
“These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,” Fitton said. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.”
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder already joined the leftist lynch mob and reached his own verdict in the controversial case that, thanks to cheerleader journalism, has divided America. Holder, whose visceral contempt for conservatives is well documented, has single-mindedly focused on turning the Department of Justice into a postmodernist racial grievance incubator.
Of course, in a sense this kind of government-subsidized pot-stirring is nothing new. The Left has been using taxpayer dollars to fund efforts to advance radical causes and foment revolution in the United States for a half century, as I explained in my book, Subversion Inc.
Changes in federal social policy in the mid-1960s helped to lay the groundwork for this artificial activism and the civil unrest it caused. Under the leftist-designed War on Poverty, the federal government has been handing out taxpayers’ money since 1965 to community groups in order to encourage them to agitate against the status quo. In a sense, America declared war on itself and funded Saul Alinsky-inspired pressure groups to do the fighting.
In the Zimmerman case, the Obama administration simply cut out the middleman by hiring community organizers directly instead of giving federal grants to left-wing activist groups to support their troublemaking.
This isn’t the first time President Obama has used DOJ employees as his personal Alinskyite stormtroopers. Uniformed field representatives of the CRS also assisted Occupy Wall Street and anarchist activists outside the Republican National Convention in Tampa last year.
At every turn of his entire political career Barack Obama has been the instigator, promoter, and beneficiary of left-wing race hatred. It helped him move up the political ladder.
Fishing for votes, Obama injected himself and racial politics into the Zimmerman case during the election cycle last year when he volunteered, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
In the Martin case, the Left appears to have employed the same race-baiting messaging strategy that helped to inflame racial tensions in the aftermath of the tragic 2006 death of Martin Lee Anderson, a 14-year-old black boy. After Anderson died during mandatory physical training at a Florida boot camp for young offenders, racial-grievance mongers and politicians claimed he was killed because of the color of his skin and demanded that criminal charges be laid. A racially diverse group of eight defendants (i.e. seven camp guards and a nurse) was eventually acquitted. The jury deliberated a mere 90 minutes after the three week manslaughter trial.
More evidence emerged yesterday that the prosecution of Zimmerman was a politically motivated witch hunt from the start.
After testifying in the trial Monday, former Sanford police chief Bill Lee told CNN that he was forced out of his job last year after he refused to lay charges against Zimmerman. In league with the NAACP, the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service helped to get Lee fired.
The investigation itself was hijacked by outside forces  “in a number of ways,” Lee said.
Despite the absence of evidence suggesting Zimmerman’s guilt, city officials pressured Lee to arrest him, he said.
“It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn’t care if it got dismissed later,” he said. “You don’t do that.”
Investigators were painfully aware that keeping Zimmerman out of jail for 46 days after the shooting was politically unpopular, Lee explained. Their forbearance subjected them to abuse “but they performed professionally. That’s the mark of a strong police department.”
Lee defended the police investigation as “sound,” explaining that there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene or in the weeks following.
“The police department needed to do a job, and there was some influence — outside influence and inside influence — that forced a change in the course of the normal criminal justice process,” Lee said. “With all the influence and the protests and petitions for an arrest, you still have to uphold your oath.”
“That investigation was taken away from us,” he said. “We weren’t able to complete it.”
Meanwhile, defense lawyers rested their case in the Zimmerman trial yesterday.
Zimmerman declined to take the witness stand in his own defense.
Sanford Chief of Police Cecil Smith told Breitbart News that there is “nothing out there”  suggesting that the verdict in the trial will be followed by civil unrest.
Sanford police have been coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security and CRS regional director Thomas Battles, Smith said.

If no riots break out, Obama’s community agitators may be forced to start some.

Sessions: How The GOP Can Turn Immigration Debate On Its Head

National Review ^ | 7/10/13 | Jeff Sessions

The White House and their congressional allies believe that the Senate immigration bill can be used as a political cudgel against House Republicans.
They are wrong. If Republicans do the right thing, they will not only turn the immigration debate on its head but will begin the essential drive to regain the trust of working Americans.
We already know that the public repudiates the Gang of Eight’s amnesty-first model by a 4–1 margin. Less discussed is the public’s broad opposition to the large increases in low-skill immigration — and its impact on jobs and wages — that lies at the heart of the Senate proposal.
In their zeal to rush this 1,200-page train wreck through the Senate with as many votes as possible, Democrat leadership whipped every single member of their conference. After over four years of the Obama presidency, wages have continued their painful decline. But the same Democrat senators who attacked President Bush for declining wages have suddenly fallen silent.
And so, with unanimous Democrat support, the Senate adopted a bill that adds four times more guest workers than the rejected 2007 plan at a time when 4.3 million more Americans are out of work and 20 million more Americans are on food stamps. The proposal also grants immediate work authorization to those here illegally while dramatically boosting permanent levels of annual legal immigration in the future. Based on Congressional Budget Office data, the bill would grant permanent residency to 46 million mostly lower-skill immigrants by 2033.
The result? CBO says wages would fall for the next dozen years, unemployment would rise, and per-capita GNP would be lower for the next quarter century.
Strikingly, wages are lower today than in 1999. Median household income has declined 8 percent. One in seven recent college graduates is unemployed. One in three Americans without a high-school diploma can’t find work. The Senate immigration bill — written by the White House, Democrat leadership and supported by the entire Democrat conference — sacrifices the economic interests of these Americans in deference to the politicians and business interest who want lower-cost labor.
If there is any lesson for the GOP to learn from 2012, it’s that we must do a better job fighting for and connecting with working Americans of all backgrounds — immigrant and native-born alike — whose wages have fallen and whose employment opportunities have increasingly diminished.
In pushing for this bill, the Left has abandoned and taken for granted the struggling worker. By doing the right thing on immigration, the GOP can distance our party from the corporate titans who believe the immigration policy for our entire country should be modeled to pad their bottom line.
Consider this story relayed in a recent New York Times article:
Since John Vretis was let go by an electronics company in November, he has made it through the first and second cut of applicants at several companies near his home in Moline, Ill. But Mr. Vretis has yet to receive an offer. He recently interviewed at a metals company that is adding 25 workers a month, but was told it had 4,000 applicants for those positions. ‘I’m 55 and I know that’s an issue,’ said Mr. Vretis, who holds an associate’s degree in accounting.
With all due respect to Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Rove, and the Chamber of Commerce, there is not a shortage of workers in America. There is a shortage of jobs.
The failed 1986 amnesty has been much and rightly discussed throughout the current immigration debate. But there is an even more poignant lesson to be drawn from the Reagan years: One thing that made President Reagan such an exceptional leader was the clarity and courage with which he gave a fresh voice to the economic concerns and needs of his time.
The GOP is presented with such a moment now. The White House has made its central legislative priority a bill that would result in decades of stagnant wages, stubborn unemployment, and increasing poverty. Instead of joining in that destructive effort, the GOP should reject it and demand reforms that encourage self-sufficiency and promote rising wages.
Both as a matter of economic policy and social policy, the best course for America is one that helps more of our residents move off of welfare, off of unemployment, and into good-paying jobs. We can’t simply ignore the large number of chronically underemployed Americans. Immigration policy should promote — not inhibit — individual opportunity and community confidence.
The Senate immigration bill is Obamacare’s 1,200-page legislative cousin. It is a disaster on every level. Republicans should make no effort to salvage it or to offer even the slightest hope of revival. Instead, we should draw sharp and bold contrasts that earn the loyalty of our faithful supporters and the newfound respect of the millions of working Americans who have turned away.

The Law Means Nothing to These People

American Thinker ^ | 7-11-2013 | Jon N. Hall

President Obama has just nullified, all by his lonesome, a provision in a duly-enacted law: the employer mandate in ObamaCare. It's one thing to give priority to enforcing one law over another, such as stressing interdiction of cocaine over marijuana. But to just cancel a law is quite another matter. In "Obama's never-mind presidency" on July 5 in the Washington Post, George Will writes:
Although the Constitution has no Article VIII, the administration acts as though there is one that reads: "Notwithstanding all that stuff in other articles about how laws are made, if a president finds a law politically inconvenient, he can simply post on the White House Web site a notice saying: Never mind."
Never mind that the law stipulates 2014 as the year when employers with 50 full-time workers are mandated to offer them health-care coverage or pay fines. Instead, 2015 will be the year. Unless Democrats see a presidential election coming.
So our experience with health-care reform bleeds over into immigration reform. If our imperial (and imperious) president can vacate or delay parts of ObamaCare he doesn't like or that are politically inconvenient, then he can do the same with immigration reform, such as enforcing border security. Once bitten, twice shy.
It makes no sense to get all worked up about passing a new law when the laws already on the books are being nullified before they even take effect or were never enforced in the first place. If you'll recall, Congress passed a law back in 1986 that was supposed to seal the border and stop invasions by illegal aliens. It doesn't seem to have worked. So there's no urgent need to enact yet another law the feds will just ignore.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...