We now have a clearer picture of what the “occupy” movement has planned for their version of a new America… and it’s a society that is riddled with drug crimes, sexual assaults, arguments, third world conditions and racism. Proudly solidified in the the ACLU brief’s introduction, filed in the Suffolk Superior Court on behalf of the Occupy Boston movement, is a rather twisted vision of what the movement insists is “what Democracy should look like.”

Citizens walking by Dewey Square on Atlantic Avenue – or stopping in at Occupy Boston to satisfy their curiosity about what Occupy Boston is all about – see all of this in action; the tent city, the community complete with a library, medical facilities, media and the community’s legislature. They see that the exemplar community visually before them is what Occupy Boston protestors believe and advocate democracy should look like; a more just, more democratic, more economically egalitarian system than the current version of democracy in the United States.

Okay… I’ll bite. Is this the new utopia in our future?

Boyo… talk about “poetic license”….

And I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the glorious lifestyle depicted above are all courtesy of those that actually work for a living, and were saps enough to donate tho this “cause” of “democracy. It surely isn’t supported by the occupants, themselves.

Even if the accommodations look less appealing than the digs of the POTUS Kenyan brother, what about the civil society they tout as superior? According to the Boston Police Commissioner, even as recently as yesterday, the increase in crimes for drug sales, vandalism and assaultive behavior has ticked up dramatically, and cost the city taxpayers up to $750,000 in police overtime so far. Also on the rise is prostitution.

Crime is just one perk of this utopian vision. The city’s health officials find the poor storage of food is attracting rodents, and there’s a dearth of showers and toilets for the 134 tents in this version of “democracy”. Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, has visited this utopian dream and observed “some occupants defecating in the Dewey Square shrubbery,” and reveled in the pungency of human urine.

“It is my opinion that the camp, in its current condition, provides an environment that can facilitate the spread of viruses and communicable diseases,’’ Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, wrote in an affidavit.

“Further, the condition of the camp, transient nature of the campers, and lack of an identifiable or accountable person to consistently employ health and safety measures can result in the spread of serious and potentially life threatening illness among the campers,’’ she wrote.

She added, “These health hazards will not abate if the current conditions are allowed to persist.’’

Also less than thrilled with this new vision of “democracy” is Boston Fire Marshal Bart Shea, calling it appalling and a “chaotic scene. What with all the smoking, and disposing cigarettes near combustible debris, incense burning; and dangerous extension cords, the place is a fire trap. It’s dangerous not only for the utopian denizens, but constitutes an obstacle course for firemen. While “winterizing” this already idyllic setting, draping flammable tarps over already risky tent materials, firemen face serious trip hazards by poorly placed ropes used to secure the tents.

As the pièce de résistance… or icing on the cake, if you prefer… this little democratic utopia has now had one of it’s ostracized own, Jamal Crawford, break away from the group and form another – citing charges of racism.

Community activist Jamal Crawford said elements such as “racism and white privilege” have been “hindrances to forward progress,” in an e-mail he sent to occupiers, demanding certain things change. “I can’t say all of OB is racist or OB itself is racist [but] we witnessed and experienced white privilege and racism,” he said.

Last week, Crawford sent the “demands” to garner support for OTHB.

The e-mail circulated quickly, getting mixed reactions from protesters, before he was invited to a general assembly to talk about certain requests.

But due to a lack of a quorum, no vote was made on the measures.

Frustrated with the inaction, Crawford said he later received e-mails he claims were “an all out attack on his character” because of his demands and how they were worded.

Occupy the Hood Boston has got it’s own little flashy power fist logo going as well, and insist their birth was “on the cusp of 2 very significant events in Black History, the 45th Anniversary of the Black Panther Party Oct. 15, 1966 & The Million Man March Oct. 16, 1995.” They insist all those white folk in the more upscale utopian village lack the voice to speak for People of Color…. and denounced their refusal to set aside a day devoted just to issues featuring those of color.

Ah… ya gotta love it when the PC world, created by just these types of thinkers, comes back and bites them in the tush.

The Golden Age - Lucas Cranach (the elder)

“Occupy Boston’s tent city and 24 hour-a-day 7 day-a-week community is … expressing the message that there is the possibility of a more fair, democratic, and economically egalitarian society,” the brief says. “It is the message of the Occupy protests.”

To that end, Occupy Boston’s lawyers also filed affidavits from local teachers and students who said they visited the Occupy Boston camp to learn more about the Occupy movement. Richard Feigenberg, a teacher at Martin Luther King Jr. Open School in Cambridge, described a field trip that he took with his students to learn about the Occupy movement’s message.

“By our direct observation during our visit, we saw Occupy Boston participants demonstrating an alternative way of people relating to each other, as part of their message concerning the control exerted by the 1 percent over our social institutions.”

I don’t know about you, but count me soooo *not* on board with this idyllic version of America. I don’t know about other parents, but I’d be disinfecting my kid after that field trip.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino, apparently one of those who also can’t appreciate their vision of utopia, told Newscenter 5, “I want to have the tools to remove them from the Dewey Square area.” Like most officials, cowered by the prospect of bad press when the infestants refuse to cooperate, he doesn’t have any current plans to remove them… just wants to be ready when the situation is so dire he has no choice. Tick tock, tick tock.

But the city officials ran up against activist Suffolk Superior Court Judge, Frances McIntyre, who granted a restraining order against the City of Boston for removing this lovely little example of “democracy” a little over a week ago. Back in court today – with the infestants represented by the usual suspects, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild – Judge McIntyre kicked the can down the road on a ruling, and said she’d make a decision over the encampment’s legality no later than Dec 15th.

Again the legal beagles are attempting to insist that camping and occupation is a 1st Amendment right, despite a contrary ruling in New York, upholding the right for officials to clear out Zuccotti Park. Little details like precedents don’t bother Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. Her group is special…. they are, after all, the poster children for “what democracy is supposed to look like”, right?

Rose explains the difference between a New York judge saying the Occupiers don’t have a first-amendment right to be in Zuccotti Park, yet a judge in Boston said Occupiers do have a first-amendment right to be in Dewey Square.

“The facts on the ground are different,” says Rose, citing a public park versus legislation and peaceful protesters versus violent protesters.

????

What does violent or peaceful have to do with violations of permits, health codes, fire safety regulations, and being a crime pit in a park that doesn’t allow overnight, let alone permanent camping? Is the rule of law good for a civil society? Or is it not?

We should be thankful that Ms. Rose admits that if the camp is found to be the infestation it already is, that police could, and should, be dismantling this icon of democracy. But Ms. Rose will still have her hands full since some are already planning for a showdown.

FOX 25 spoke with protesters who indicate they will not quietly leave their Dewey Square encampment. Several of them say if the city wants them out, they will have to physically remove them.

Democracy, or mob rule and a disregard for simple laws for a civil society? I guess this bunch has a vision of freedom and “democracy” that’s totally foreign to me… and I daresay to the Founders and Framers.

Wanna know how to make Cancer patients feel better? Fire Santa.

It’s not even Thanksgiving yet and Santa Claus was fired then rehired (after a firestorm of “passionate response” from the public) at Hollings Cancer Center in Charleston, South Carolina:

For each of the past two years, hospital volunteer Frank Cloyes spent one day as St. Nick, spreading good cheer and snacks to patients sitting through chemotherapy treatments. The 67-year-old James Island resident, a retired insurance executive who calls himself a “gregarious guy,” paid for his own costume rental.

On Tuesday morning, a volunteer coordinator told Cloyes his services no longer were needed.

“Because of our state affiliation, we decided not to have a Santa presence this year,” Hollings spokeswoman Vicky Agnew said. Hollings is a part of the Medical University of South Carolina.

Decorations will be “more secular and respectful to all beliefs,” Agnew said. “We don’t want to offend a volunteer with good intentions, but we need to think of the bigger picture. People who are Muslim or Jewish or have no religious beliefs come here for treatment,” she said.

You know who’s offended? I, as a non-Christian, am offended by this intolerance for expressions of religious faith. Christmas is a Christian religious holiday; but the national celebration itself, including all the commercial trappings that go along with it, is deeply rooted in American tradition and should be embraced by all Americans of all faiths. It does not mean you have to be Christian to celebrate a universal message of peace and good will to all men. You might not believe in the Savior, Jesus Christ; but why rain on the parade of those who do?

The concept of Santa Claus himself is more commercial than he is Christian. Why should I, as Jew, Muslim, atheist, whatever, be offended by such a jolly ol’ elf? When I was growing up, my parents celebrated Christmas as an American holiday. We handed out cards, decorated a tree, participated in gift-giving; and I was told that when I woke up the next morning, there’d be presents under the tree from Santa so long as I was not a naughty boy. Oh, and by the way: My mom is Buddhist. My dad a staunch atheist.

Bah humbug, said Cloyes, a self- described libertarian with no religious affiliation.

“Santa is a tradition and everyone loves him,” Cloyes said. “It’s just something that makes people happy for a while. Kids liked it, staff liked it. People took pictures.”

What is so harmful about the sight and sounds of a Santa Claus to chemotherapy patience in a hospital ward?

Apparently, though, some did feel exclusion:

In a statement Wednesday, Hollings spokeswoman Agnew said: “When we discussed not having a Santa presence this year, we were actually responding to previous complaints from patients with other holiday beliefs who felt excluded.”

What’s Santa gonna do to a Muslim kid sitting in the cancer ward? Say, “Nah! Nah! No present for you!”

Hospital officials based their decisions on respecting “the different cultures and beliefs of the patients we care for,” Agnew said in the statement. Santa and other holiday traditions now will be allowed “because we recognize the emotional benefit to patients,” she said.

Should non-Christians feel excluded during Eid al-Fitr? Rosh Hashanah? Actually, yes, probably so. But that’s because these are strictly religious celebrations without the secularized, universally accessible traditions that Easter and Christmas enjoy in this country for those outside the religious faith. But if they developed traditions over time that became significant enough to be embraced by society at large, why should I, as an outsider to the faith, be offended or feel excluded? If I feel left out on their special holiday, if I don’t want to help them celebrate, that should be my problem; not theirs. Why do I need my faith represented on their dates?

Yes, Christmastime is a Christian holiday. And it’s a time of the year enjoyed by most Americans, both Christian and non-Christian. I refuse to say “Winter Holiday” and use other politically correct, all-inclusive terminologies that seek to take the Christ out of Christmas.

As for the 1st Amendment, the way I see it remains as one of religious freedom and tolerance; and that although the (federal) government is prohibited from endorsing a single church as the national faith (the Christian Protestant religion was the state religion for 205 yrs up until 1868 with ratification of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) , it’s not the same thing as divorcing all forms of religious expression in the government square.

;

Hat tip for story: The Dennis Prager Show

Obama's Defeat In 2012 Promises To Be As Devastating As Napoleon's Defeat In Russia

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

It is becoming more obvious to members of the Far Leftist Progressive Socialists that the Obama Myth was indeed a myth, a myth of astronomical proportions. Obama’s miserable performance in everything except redistributing America’s wealth among foreign despots and domestic cronies has made his reelection a forlorn hope. The dyed in the wool Marxists are already blaming the Republicans for holding back on the economy and their creative people in the media will becoming up with still more excuses for the most miserable presidential failure in the history of the United States. Unfortunately for the Marxist Revolution, Obama’s failures are so epic in scope that the creative lies and hype surrounding the collapse of the Obama Myth seem little more than non sequiturs to all but the most deluded and the die hard ideologues.

Even Michelle’s vignette’s from her family life find almost no traction in the eye of the public; in fact they could easily be mistaken for comedic relief if her timing and delivery was better. In this scene from the White House living room, Michelle has kicked off her Jimmy Choos’ designer shoes and loosened the ever present cartridge belt worn up high over her latest designer dress and BO has his feet in slippers after a grueling eighteen holes in golf shoes. With a cold beer in his hand, he contemplates the plight of his and Eric Holder’s people. In this semi-fictitous melodrama:

President Obama tells his wife about his personal problems, “Michelle, it just isn’t right, what people are going through”. ‘

Michelle replies with wifely concern, “Why, what do you mean Barack?”

Barack unloads with his true feelings, “we have to fix it. I am tired, but I can’t rest until this is fixed!”

Michelle replies innocently, “fix what dear, are you referring to the revolution or the next election?”

Barack releases his pent up frustration, “there is so much to accomplish and I have already wasted nearly three years, but the work is so hard and these Republicans are so resistant to my radical ideas”.

Michelle, “don’t worry so much over the past, just concentrate on the election and getting reelected, so that you can continue the work you have started, now come here and concentrate on fixing your big mama”.

America used to believe these imaginary discussions between the Obamas, but after the failures and continuous onslaught of lies from the White House, no one is paying attention to Michelle’s pathetic attempts to warm the hearts of America.

Actually, even the indoctrination of America’s youth is starting to lose its effect, because of the pathetic attempts to co-opt the most dynamic economy in the world with Socialism and its history of failure.

Their’s was a plan that has been in motion for forty years. They have invested a tremendous amount of effort in transforming the public education system into a Leftist Indoctrination machine and had millions of close minded Leftist Ideologue graduates waiting to follow the party line; unfortunately, the most intelligent man to ever hold the presidential office turned out to be just as clueless as his resume. The first generation of Affirmative action was put on display and was a total dud. A manufactured man, the product of media hype by Useful Idiots who thought the Leftist Ideology was so far superior to Fee Market Capitalism and the ideas of personal liberty, that a blithering idiot could transform America into a Socialist Utopia; they were wrong.

They almost succeeded in destroying a vibrant economy, but the tenets of Socialism are not saving America, no they ran out of steam once the money dried up and the entrepreneurs who drive the engines of industry decided to hold onto their capital rather than investing in Obama’s Socialism and maybe lose everything to nationalism. Thus the lush green valleys of America’s dynamic economy, that were envied around the world, became a star and barren desert in less than three years.

The realists among the Marxists who are not blinded by idealism and designated as brainless Useful Idiots realize the situation is hopeless. Their election winner couldn’t run a shoe shine stand and it shows.

They must now reduce the collateral damage caused by the simpleton in the White House. One of the most appalling facts of the future for Marxists is a Conservative president who will be able to staff the Supreme Court with Conservative Judges who will not favor the International Socialist Revolution. Thus they feel that Justice Ginsburg should step down so that the Marxist failure in the White House can appoint a Socialist judge before he receives the bum’s rush out the back door of the White House. The clock is ticking and Justice Ginsburg at 78 has already survived cancer of the colon and pancreatic cancer.

Liberals Be Not Proud

Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the Leftist UC Irvine Law School:

“She has in her power the ability to prevent a real shift in the balance of power on the court,”

This is the future for those devoted to the Glorious Revolution; once you have outlived your usefulness to the party, you should lay down and die. You are nearly dead, so step down and allow a younger Socialist to replace you.

Forget the fact that she never missed a day on the court while undergoing chemo and radiation therapy. All of this because a fart in a tornado has more of a chance of being elected than Obama. But Justice Ginsburg is supposed to give up her seat because Obama is clueless.

The feelings of a woman who fought against all odds to overcome cancer and stayed on the job despite the extreme sickness that accompanies the therapy are not to be considered, she should fall upon her sword for the glory of the revolution and become a footnote in history. Conservatives tend to disagree with this devaluation of life by the Socialist Revolution, nay, we say the woman deserves her role in life and if she can function for another decade or two, so much the better for her. She at least has the fighting spirit.

Napoleon's Greatest Defeat Was At Waterloo, Democrats Expect Obama To Meet His Waterloo In 2012

I’ve followed with great interest the debate raging in Florida over the new law signed by Governor Rick Scott that mandates drug testing for welfare recipients. The ACLU is, of course, challenging this law because according to the ACLU welfare babies should get anything and everything they want without strings attached! They also make several strawman arguments in opposition to the law:

* “Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.” This isn’t the point. If even ONE person is receiving public aid and using that aid to purchase drugs, it’s one person too many. Taxpayer money should not go to financing destructive and irresponsible choices. The argument isn’t that welfare recipients use more or less drugs, just that the state wants to ensure NO ONE does!

* “Science and medical experts overwhelmingly oppose the drug testing of welfare recipients.” So what! Science and medical experts aren’t forking over the cash to pay for lazy ass freeloaders that want a free ride. This is public money and the public deserves to know that there money isn’t being wasted.

* “Drug testing is expensive.” Not nearly as expensive as welfare! Florida spends over $11 billion per year on welfare alone! Nearly 2 million people receive welfare in the state, averaging $5500 per person. I think the state can afford to protect that investment with a minor $42 test (assuming that number is accurate, which I doubt). Removing just ONE druggy from the welfare roles pays for nearly 131 tests alone! So, in the end, testing will pay for itself if the ACLU is right. Using the ACLU’s numbers, approximately 170,000 would pop positive for illicit drugs (citing ACLU’s 10% figure). Removing those individuals from the welfare roles would save the state $935,000,000. The cost of testing EVERY recipient on welfare is $71.4 million, a total savings of over $863 million! Obviously, the ACLU flunked elementary math.

* “Mandatory drug testing is an ineffective means to uncover drug abuse.” They go on to state that a “questionnaire” is more likely to find druggies! Seriously! I’m not making that up. Just ask them, they’ll be honest with you! This is so ignorant, I don’t even think it really deserves an educated response.

* “Many states have rejected the random drug testing of welfare recipients as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.” I’ve already gone over this, so the states can use my real numbers to see that this argument is mathematically flawed, to say the least.

* “Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions.” I can’t speak for most state constitutions, but I KNOW my U.S. Constitution and nothing in mandatory drug testing violates it. This is the one I want to spend the most time on.

The ACLU doesn’t mention WHERE in the U.S. Constitution mandatory drug testing is forbidden. I’m assuming that the 4th amendment would be the one most likely cited. It reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This would be a constitutional issue if the state wanted to just randomly test any American. But, we’re not talking about the state just testing anyone. We’re talking about people who APPLY for welfare benefits or seek government jobs. By doing so, citizens voluntarily accept certain conditions that will apply if approved.

As a Soldier, I’m required to get drug tested whenever the military wants to test me. I can’t claim 4th Amendment violations because I VOLUNTEERED for this job. No one forced me into the military, just like no one forces someone to work at Blockbuster where there is also mandatory drug testing. If I don’t want to be drug tested, I can refuse and just be removed from the military. It’s that simple.

Welfare recipients have the same choice. If they WANT welfare checks and privileges, the state of Florida has mandated that certain conditions be met, among those a drug-free lifestyle. The ACLU claims that requiring state employees to get drug tested is an overreach of executive power.

The ACLU is errantly claiming that the governor “is willing to use the power of government to intrude upon your rights in Florida.” There is no right to work, even though Florida is a “right to work” state. The “right to work” law deals with unions, not jobs. If there was an unfettered “right to work” no business would even be allowed to require applications. They’d just hire people because they have a right to be employed.

No one’s rights are being trampled when people voluntarily seek public assistance. As long as they are told that in order to qualify for that assistance they have to pass an initial drug test and random drug tests as long as they receive that assistance, individuals make a conscious decision to accept that condition. They voluntarily surrender their rights in exchange for assistance, much the same way people do to get a job (like in the military).

A perfect example to sum up the difference for when mandatory drug testing is okay is the education system. I am adamantly opposed to mandatory drug testing in the school system. Why? Because my kids are basically forced to use it. If I choose not to send my kids to school, I get fined or charged. Since I’m forced to send my kids to public schools (unless I CHOOSE to pay for private school, which I can’t afford), it would be a violation of my kids’ civil rights to force them to be tested. The schools, however, have found a loophole. If a child wants to play extra-curricular sports or activities, they must submit to drug testing. So, naturally, my kids don’t play sports at school. But, I would accept the condition of drug testing and waive those rights if I wanted my kids to play sports. It’s no different with public assistance.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

A couple of days ago, I read an article about how police in Michigan (go figure) were forcing motorists to surrender their cell phones upon being detention for traffic violations. They are using the common tactic that most liberals and anti-constitutionalist morons use that “if you have nothing to hide, you’ll do what I ask.”

This, of course, is false logic. “If I’ve done nothing wrong, there is no reason to ask” is the proper approach that citizens should take when asked to waive their 4th Amendment rights at any time, including traffic stops.

The 4th Amendment states unequivocally:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, cops would argue that it’s “reasonable” to search a cell phone during traffic stops, but the appropriate response is included at the end of their justification: “but upon probably cause.” What probable cause do Michigan police have that 1) a crime was committed and 2) that the cell phone will provide evidence of that crime?

According to the article:

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

“Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,” a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device’s capabilities. “The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps.”

The police have no need for this information and citizens should NEVER surrender their 4th Amendment rights without a court order. It’s disturbing that our government is even CONSIDERING this type of technology, let alone using it in common traffic stops. It’s important that we understand and EXERCISE our rights as guaranteed to us by the Constitution. The government can only take away the rights we freely grant them.

At The Beast “Murphy” posted the transcript of the juvenile punking of Governor Scott Walker and closed with this:

So there you have it, kids. Government isn’t for the people. It’s for the people with money. You want to be heard? Too fucking bad. You want to collectively bargain? You can’t afford a seat at the table. You may have built that table. But it’s not yours. It belongs to the Kochs and the oligarch class. It’s guarded by Republicans like Walker, and his Democratic counterparts across that ever-narrowing aisle that is corporate rule, so that the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots can swallow all the power in the world. These are known knowns, and now we just know them a little more.

“These are known knowns.”

Curiously, Walker said nothing that he hadn’t said in public already. This is a great article on Walker.

Now, about being Koch’s whore.

At Powerline John Hinderaker skewers NY Times reporter Eric Lipton for a shoddy piece of reporting on the Koch brothers and their connection to Scott Walker. Somehow, Scott Walker in Wisconsin is doing the bidding of the Koch brothers who live in Wichita.

The Times is well known for its selective concern about money in politics. In the Times’s view, billionaires are more than welcome, as long as they contribute–as most of them do–to Democrats. Lipton tries to suggest that the Koch brothers are uniquely influential contributors.
~~~~

What’s more, of the top 20 donors, 12–more than half–are unions. Isn’t there an untold story here? Aren’t the Koch brothers lonely rebels who are trying to offset the monolithic power and unparalleled financial muscle of the unions, especially the public employee unions? Isn’t that what the Wisconsin story is really about?

Those nefarious Koch brothers have an interesting right wing agenda. They donated $20 million to the ACLU in order to try to fight George Bush’s Patriot Act. The Koch brothers support drug legalization, gay marriage, and reduced defense spending.

That reads like something straight of the Tea Party manifesto, doesn’t it?

Let’s take this “Koch Whore” analogy a little further.

Hinderaker notes that the Koch PAC contributed $43,000 to Walker’s campaign, and Walker raised more than $11 million in total. Now let’s take a look at who gave Barack Obama big money.

Goldman Sachs $994,795

I can’t help but wonder- if Scott Walker is a Koch whore for a paltry $43,000, does a million dollars make Barack Obama Goldman’s slave?

Note:

Goldman Sachs was a recipient of bailout funds, estimated to be between 3 billion and $13 billion. Then-Senator Barack Obama urged passage of the bailout bill during the time Goldman was handing Obama a million bucks.

While the rest of are suffering through a poor economy, how is Goldman Sachs doing?

Pretty darned good.

NEW YORK — Goldman Sachs reported blockbuster earnings of $13.39 billion for 2009 and said on Thursday that it kept compensation below the levels of its pre-crisis heydays.

Bonus Watch 2010: Goldman Sachs Pays Huge Bonuses And Gives Junior Bankers A 50% Salary Raise

Goldman Sachs bankers to receive $15.3bn in pay and bonuses

Goldman Sachs has set aside $15.3bn to pay its staff in 2010 – an average of $430,000 each – in a move that re-ignited the controversy over City pay and bonuses.

Their investment has paid off handsomely.

“The whole point of the bailout is to save Goldman Sachs,” said Christopher Whalen, head of financial advisory services for Institutional Risk Analytics. “The whole thing is so rancid and so hideous.”

How are you doing?

Check out the disclaimer at the beginning:

©2008 Wilder Publications
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission except for brief quotations for review purposes only.

A & D Publishing
PO Box 3005
Radford VA 24143-3005
www.wilderpublications.com

As Kevin the Lawyer comments in the Amazon Review section:

Unlike the half-wits who are commenting on the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation, I will be commenting on the publishers (Wilder Publications & A&D Publishing) compilation of the documents. DO NOT buy this publication. The publisher inserted “notes” all over the place. I don’t know if it was an accident in the copying of the documents from one format to another but it detracts from the text. And, this is absolutely brilliant, it inserted the following disclaimer: “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today…” Really Wilder! that is your view of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Just one of a few negative comments there, regarding the publisher.

Hat tip: Michael Medved

Impeach Bush. War criminals. Cheney, Halliburton and torture. Illegal war. Spying on Americans. Secret prisons. shredding of our Constitution. Sacrificed our values. Bush lied, people died. Waterboarding is torture.

Rather than seeing things in terms of “policy differences”, those further to the left of President Obama (hard to believe that’s possible, I know- but now he has to govern) still seek to appease their moveon.org base by prosecuting persecuting those they believe participated in criminal activity under the Bush Administration. They believe that Bush hurt America’s moral standing in the world.

A bit over a week ago, Bush lawyers Yoo and Bybee were cleared of any professional misconduct, which arguably is not the case for their accusers.

Also last Wednesday, while all eyes were turned to the healthcare summit, Rep. Jim McDermott tried by means of Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes “manager’s amendment”, to slip unnoticed into the House intelligence authorization bill a provision entitled “Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010”. This amendment would criminalize future interrogators (up to including the death penalty) for what has already been abolished by President Obama: enhanced interrogations.

But thanks to bipartisan opposition and congressional Republicans led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, they get a “D” for effort:

With no hearings or public debate, Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes included a provision sponsored by Rep. Jim McDermott called the “Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010” in the intelligence bill, which would have banned a raft of poorly-defined interrogation techniques (including waterboarding) and specified prison sentences starting at a minimum of 15 years for intelligence officials who use them. His efforts met with instant opposition from congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and apparently faced opposition from the Obama administration as well. By late Thursday night the intelligence bill had been pulled.

The episode holds a few lessons: First, it is an acknowledgement by congressional Democrats that the Bush administration was right when it found that waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques were not illegal under existing U.S. laws—if they were already illegal, there would be no need to pass legislation making them illegal today.

Second, it is telling that Democrats felt they had to try to slip this provision into the intelligence bill in secret, while the whole city was otherwise occupied. The bill had no review in the intelligence committee, and the CIA was given no opportunity to examine the legislation or present its views. This shows that Democrats realize most Americans disagree with them on the question of terrorist interrogation, or else they would have no problem with open debate.

Finally, the episode raises a question: Why now? No terrorist has been waterboarded for seven years. President Obama has eliminated all enhanced interrogation techniques by executive order, and required that all interrogations follow the Army Field Manual. Pelosi and congressional Democrats did not object to waterboarding when it was taking place, but now seven years later they want to pass legislation banning it along with a raft of other techniques?

Gregory D. Lee:

Apparently, Rep. McDermott and his friends on the intelligence committee want to remove any opportunity to use EITs again. Passing a law attaching criminal penalties for using EITs would mean it would literally take an act of Congress to repeal it if this or a future president decided there was a sudden need to use them.

For example, a high-value terrorist is captured and brags to his CIA interrogators that there is a crude nuclear weapon somewhere in the U.S. that will go off tomorrow. He says he knows the exact location of the bomb, but refuses to disclose it. The terrorist agrees to take a polygraph examination to prove the veracity of his claim, and passes with flying colors. The president is informed and, like the CIA, is convinced the threat is genuine. What should the president do?

If left up to Rep. McDermott, the president could not legally order the use of EITs to extract the exact location of the nuclear weapon. In fact, if the president ordered interrogators to use EITs, whether or not he obtained the information that saved thousands of American lives, he and the interrogators would be subject to imprisonment.

To Rep. McDermott, waterboarding, placing a bug in terrorists’ confined quarters, sleep deprivation, exploiting a phobia or anything else that humanely persuades terrorists to disclose actionable intelligence, must to be outlawed. In fact, the act includes the sentence, “The moral standards that reflect the values of the United States governing appropriate tactics for interrogations do not change according to the dangers that we face as a nation” (emphasis added). Therefore, even if my scenario happened, interrogators could not use EITs without risking prison.

In one fell swoop, the ACLU lost 25% of it’s funding with the loss of a single donor. Another large recipient from the same donor, the Sierra Club, has also been advised of their funding cuts.

David Gelbaum, a wealthy conservationist out of California, has donated about $389 million to the ACLU, the Sierra Club, as well as an organization that provides services to military personnel from 2005 to 2009.

David Gelbaum, a major donor to the Sierra Club Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and an organization that provides services to military personnel, said he would cut donations next year because investments in alternative-energy firms have “placed me in a highly illiquid position.”

~~~

Mr. Gelbaum had been an anonymous donor to the groups but said in the letter he publicly identified himself so recipients of his funding “may ask others to step forward to help sustain them in the future.” The letter signaling cuts to the ACLU was first reported by the New York Times. [Hotlink added by Mata]

Mr. Gelbaum, a major donor to the Democratic Party, didn’t identify the clean-energy investments, but Quercus Trust, the fund that Mr. Gelbaum runs, was down almost 57% over the 18 months to late November, according to PlacementTracker.

A full quote from the afore linked Fox News article notes that his personal business loss stems primarily from his “green” investments from Quercus Trust.

“For a number of years, your organization has received very substantial charitable contributions from me,” Gelbaum said in a statement. “My investments in alternative, clean energy companies have placed me in a highly illiquid position as a result of the general credit crisis in the American and world financial systems.”

Mr. Gelbaum, the single largest anonymous donor to the ACLU, noted he was indefinitely stopping the contributions to the ACLU, and hoped others would step up to the plate to fill the financial void.

Mr. Gelbaum’s Quercus Trust was the subject of a Nov 2007 article in Greentech Media, and is comprised of at least 34 companies that have made more green investments than any other venture capital firm. The article has a list of the specific companies, ranging from solar technologies and ethanol plants to LED and tidal power start ups.

An unassuming person, sometimes the southern Californian is mistaken for his gardener, the L.A. Times said. Although Gelbaum runs the fund to make money, some predicted that the profits from the firm will end up in the coffers of environmental causes. That’s the kind of profile that either scares VCs (because Quercus can take a long view) or makes them relax (because they feel a firm like that will make too many long bets.)

~~~

There are a few things to note. First, a lot of these companies are already public, but trading on bulletin boards. Second, some portfolio companies – such as LiveFuels, BlueFire Ethanol and DayStar Technologies – started early, but are now in crowded markets fending off companies that have garnered massive amounts of cash. There are also some interesting, long-term bets. Quercus clearly isn’t afraid to go deep or long. It also seems to have a strong hand in smart grid with GridPoint and Beacon, and it has some nice investments in car electronics. The firm additionally sometimes teams up with 21 Ventures.

~~~

If you put these companies in categories, Quercus has 11 in solar (Ascent, Open Energy, DayStar, Emcore, Akeena, Cyrium, Solar Enertech, Spire, Sencera, Octillion, Enviromission); three in smart grid and energy services (Beacon, GridPoint, Standard Renewable); four in biofuels (LiveFuels, BlueFire, Environmental Power, Dynamotive); five in batteries, storage and electronics (Firefly, Axion, Electro Energy, Odyne, Ener1); four in buildings and efficiency (China Solar, Energy Focus, Thermoenergy, Lighting Science); four in food and water (Promethean, Thermoenergy, Worldwater, Colorep); one in ocean power (Hydro); and one in hydrogen (Nanoptek); and one in wind (Magenn).

What remains somewhat puzzling is why, in a world where political policies are pushing these type of technologies, Mr. Gelbaum’s portfolio fares so poorly. Unlike Al Gore, of late touted as the world’s first carbon billionaire, Mr. Gelbaum’s investments haven’t proven as lucrative. The Sierra Club has certainly done it’s part in clearing the path for Gelbaum’s alternative energy investments, indicated by their proud announcement that they killed operations on over 100 coal plants since 2001 this past summer.

It may be that Gore, unlike his lesser successful conservationist counterpart, Gelbaum, focused his money more on the front end of environmental money makers, such as carbon emission trading, partnerships that “identify” companies that are advancing cutting-edge green technologies, and as a high paid advisor to both Apple and Google.

Another advantage may be that Gore, a former high-powered politician, knows how to take advantage of government grants, as indicated by his absconding of more than $560 million of DOE’s $3.4 bil in smart grid allocations.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

I can’t say I lament the loss of funds to either ACLU or the Sierra Club, but our military personnel are the ones that take the largest hit from the fall of this philanthropic angel.

Mr. Gelbaum’s largest donations — some $247 million — went to the Iraq Afghanistan Deployment Impact Fund at the California Community Foundation (IADIF), which helps service members and veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh that would Gelbaum’s more successful conservationist, Al Gore, step up to *that* plate. I shan’t be holding my breath.

Read full text of Gelbaum’s statement here.

Read the abridged report from IADIF on their efforts to aid military service men and women, including their involvement resulting in more than 50 pieces of legislation (including
the new GI Bill).

Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.