Obama On U.S. Oil Imports: Lying Or Just Ignorant?

In a 6 July 2009 interview with the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Obama gave the same false information on U.S. oil imports he has been repeating since at least February of this year:

We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy.  Yet we import more oil today than ever before [Emphasis mine].

That quote is from the official White House transcript of the interview.

Obama was wrong in February and is wrong today.

The above chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, shows that U.S. oil imports peaked in November 2005 and have been declining ever since.

On the page at the above link, you may view a data table of the U.S. weekly oil imports from 1991 to date.

Now, I know the facts on this, you (now) know the facts on this, but the President of the United States keeps spouting inaccuracies about U.S. oil imports. I found this data very easily, and I would kinda think Obama—backed by dozens of staff and a trillion-dollar bureaucracy—could as well.

Yet Obama has been spouting this drivel since at least February 2009—even though the facts are laughably easy to obtain.

So my question is this:

Are Obama and his administration lying or simply ignorant and inept?

The answer has to be one of those two choices.

Frankly, neither answer sits well with me, nor should it with you.

Identity crisis in America: Is the government overstepping its boundaries?

by State Senator Mike Folmer (PA-48)

Every federal and state-elected official took an oath to uphold the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions. It is imperative those in public office start taking these oaths seriously, be­cause each day that goes by, more and more of our rights and freedoms are being lost, and government's appetite for collecting personal and private data continues to grow.

I believe the most egregious example of government overreaching into personal lives is the federal Real ID Act. Designed to protect Americans in post-9/11 society, Real ID would create a national identification card. Proponents of the act believe Americans should be stripped of essential liberties for the greater safety of the country.

The federal government says this plan will protect Americans from terror­ists. I disagree. I believe it is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, redefining privacy as we know it, and creating a mountain of new bureaucracy and increasing fees and taxes—all without making us any safer.

That is why I have reintroduced legislation (Senate Bill 621) that would exempt Pennsylvania from compliance with this unfunded feder­al mandate. Eleven states, including South Carolina, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana and Virginia, have already enacted similar statutes.

If Pennsylvania were to comply with REAL ID, in January 2010, driver's licenses would become a standardized national identification card with a machine-readable zone containing valuable personal information. PennDOT would then be required to link into a massive na­tional database, opening the door to the possibility of major security breaches.

In addition, transportation departments would retain digital scans of identification documents, including birth certificates and Social Security cards, for at least 10 years or seven years for a paper copy.

I understand the threat Pennsylvanians face on our own soil, but under REAL ID, that vulnerability is magnified times 50 and leaves us all exposed.

REAL ID also threatens privacy rights by empowering the Department of Homeland Security to collect biometric data, including fingerprints and eye scans, as well as placing Radio Frequency Identification chips in every American's driver's license. A proposal by State Senator Shirley Kitchen, (D-Philadelphia), Senate Bill 623, would prohibit government bodies from capturing or releasing biometric data without an individual's approval or knowledge and prevent a slippery slope toward rights being stripped away.

Other requirements of REAL ID that take law-abiding citizens down a dangerous path are: what confidential data can be collected from driver's licenses; where and how long it can be stored; and who is authorized to obtain, share, trade or sell that information.

With one swipe of a license, an establishment can collect your personal data and use it for marketing purposes. State Senator John Wozniak's, (D-Clearfield), proposed legislation (Senate Bill 622) would restrict information that can be made available from driver's licenses for marketing or other purposes beyond law enforcement.

If we don't exempt ourselves from REAL ID by the end of 2009, we are in real danger. This act is a major violation of Americans' right to privacy and another example of the federal government overstepping its boundaries with the states -- all with an anticipated unfunded federal mandate cost of $11 billion to already financially strapped states.

The assault on our right to privacy must end. Together, this package of bills can slow the increased flow of data in our daily lives.

US Supreme Court Restricts Police Searches of Cars

US Supreme Court lays down rule forbidding warrantless car searches except in cases of officer safety or evidence protection

Arizona v. Grant Upheld, 4th Amendment Rights Restored

In a decision which seems to have gone largely unnoticed by the major news media, the US Supreme Court on Tuesday narrowed the permissible scope of warrantless automobile searches.

The high court’s 5-4 decision upheld a 2007 Arizona Supreme Court ruling which cited the 1969 California v. Chimel US Supreme Court case concluding that police must obtain a warrant before searching a car in the absence of any threat to officer safety or ability of the suspect to destroy evidence.

The Arizona ruling went counter to a nationwide trend diminishing constitutional protections against unwarranted searches.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, citing former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

"Lower court decisions seem now to treat the ability to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant as a police entitlement rather than as an exception justified by the twin rationales of Chimel."

Since a 1981 decision, New York v. Belton, effectively threw the fourth amendment out the window—at least where traffic stops are concerned—police have been able to use “officer safety” or “protection of evidence” as an excuse to search a vehicle even though the vehicle is unoccupied and there is, therefore, absolutely no threat to the officer or evidence.

The new ruling does not completely overturn New York v. Belton but narrows its implications, preventing police from using unrelated minor offenses to justify drug searches without probable cause: Car searches without probable cause are valid only "if it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle" or if the suspect might be able to access the car for weapons.

The case at hand spent nearly a decade bouncing through the Arizona courts, beginning 25 August 1999 when two Tucson police officers received a "tip" that drug activity took place at a certain location. Police went to said location and questioned Rodney Gant who happened to open the door. After leaving, the officers looked up Gant's record and found an outstanding arrest warrant for driving under a suspended license. Big-time criminal, he.

The officers waited for Gant to return to the house, arresting him after he parked his car safely in the driveway. Gant was placed in the back of a squad car within minutes and without incident. Police then proceeded to search Gant's car where they found a small plastic bag containing cocaine.

A majority lead by Justice Stevens found the search of Gant's car unconstitutional.

"The state seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake. Although we have recognized that a motorist's privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home, the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection. A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals. Indeed, the character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment—the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects."

The high court did leave police with a broad prospect for conducting warrantless searches but closed the door to searches based solely on traffic violations.

"Although it does not follow from Chimel, we also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle," Stevens wrote. "In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence."

Less than a day after the decision was released, the Michigan State Police issued guidance to officers on how to bypass the supreme court's new limitations:

"While this ruling will impact how searches of vehicles incident to arrest are conducted, officers may still conduct a full search of a person incident to a lawful arrest… In addition, officers may search vehicles using other exceptions to the warrant requirement.” (e.g. probable cause, inventory, tricking a motorist into giving consent).

A copy of the Supreme Court's decision is available as a PDF file: 07-542 Arizona v. Gant (4/21/2009)

Was Binghamton Massacre Aided By Current Gun Laws?

At a 3 April news conference, New York Governor David Paterson said that 12 or 13 people had been killed, after a gunman opened fire in a civic center where immigrants were taking a citizenship exam.

The shooter has been identified as 41-year-old Jiverly Wong or Voong of nearby Johnson City, NY—recently laid off from his job at Shop-Vac. Wearing a bulletproof vest, Voong barricaded the rear door of the building with his car, entered through the front door and began shooting.

With no way out of the building—no way to escape the sudden, savage horror taking place—over 40 people sought whatever hasty refuge they could find—however inadequate. Dozens of defenseless men and women huddled shaking, terrified, behind machinery, under desks, in dark closets: They listened to the deafening gunshots and to the blood-curdling screams of the wounded and of the dying and of those doomed souls with no escape and awaited their turns to die—like menial prisoners in a Nazi death camp.

Reports indicate that—of the over 50 people in the building—Wong was the ONLY one in the building with a firearm!

Trapped with an enraged madman, not one of the innocent people in the civic center had the capability of self-defense. The police arrived only after all the murders had been committed—as, indeed, is almost always the case.

Only the criminal had weapons: The law-abiding citizens were completely unarmed—made defenseless—as a direct result of the vile, outrageous, unconstitutional and sinister laws passed by the lunatic fringe in the United States government and championed by the lunatic fringe in Hollywood and the media.

Had just ONE of those citizens been carrying a firearm, the death toll would likely have been considerably less. Had many of them been armed, that would have been a certainty—one, well-placed head-shot would have ended the massacre.

The following are the partial results of a comprehensive study released in 1999; the full report with footnotes and references may be viewed here. I submit that, likely, nothing has changed proportionally since this report was released. Please note that emphasis is mine:

Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

• Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Of the 2.5 million self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
• Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
• Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his or her attacker.
• Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

• One-half million self-defense uses: Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.
• Florida: In the ten years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, there were 478,248 people who received permits to carry firearms. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 39% during that 10-year period. The Florida rate is now far below the national average.
• Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is almost twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. During the first ten years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 146 to 88 margin.
• Nationwide: A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
• States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and
• If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.
• Concealed Carry v. Waiting Period Laws: In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia's law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin's murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.

Criminals avoid armed citizens

• Kennesaw, GA: In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.
• Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.
• Nationwide: Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
• Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,
• Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.

Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection

• Orlando, FL: In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.
• Nationwide: In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.

Justice Department study:

• 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."
• 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
• 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Police cannot protect—and are not required to protect—every individual

• The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated "courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."
• Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying guns and he said, "They damn well better, they've got to protect themselves."
• The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour.
• Currently, there are about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than 250 million Americans—or almost 1,700 citizens per officer.

Poor track record

• Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.
• Objection: Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.
• Answer: Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas. The murder rates are:

City 1997 Murder rate Washington, DC 56.9 per 100,000 Arlington, VA 1.6 per 100,000 (Arlington is just across the river from D.C.) Total VA metro area rate: 7.9 per 100,000

• Guns are not the problem: On the contrary, lax criminal penalties and laws that disarm the law-abiding are responsible for giving criminals a safer working environment.

Criminologists turning from anti-gun position

• Dr. Gary Kleck: A criminologist at Florida State University, Kleck began his research as a firm believer in gun control. But in a speech delivered to the National Research Council, he said while he was once "a believer in the 'anti-gun' thesis," he has now moved "beyond even the skeptic position." Dr. Kleck now says the evidence "indicates that general gun availability does not measurably increase rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the US."
• James Wright: Formerly a gun control advocate, Wright received a grant from President Carter's Justice Department to study the effectiveness of gun control laws. To his surprise, he found that waiting periods, background checks, and all other gun control laws were not effective in reducing violent crime.
• Wright says at one time, "It seemed evident to me, we needed to mount a campaign to resolve the crisis of handgun proliferation." But he says, "I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for 'stricter gun control' cannot be made."
• Every scholar who has "switched" has moved away from the anti-gun position. Dave Kopel, an expert in constitutional issues and firearms research, categorically states that, "Every scholar who has 'switched' has 'switched' to the side that is skeptical of controls. Indeed, most of the prominent academic voices who are gun control skeptics—including law professor Sanford Levinson and criminologists Gary Kleck and James Wright—are people who, when they began studying guns, were supporters of the gun control agenda."
• Kopel continues: "I do not know of a single scholar who has published a pro-control article who started out as a skeptic of gun control. This suggests how heavily the weight of the evidence is distributed, once people begin studying the evidence."

Waiting periods threaten the safety of people in imminent danger

• Bonnie Elmasri: She inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.
• Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross: She bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.
• Los Angeles riots: USA Today reported that many of the people rushing to gun stores during the 1992 riots were "lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need." Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense.

Background checks do not disarm the violent criminal population

• A Justice Department survey of felons showed that 93% of handgun predators had obtained their most recent guns "off-the-record."
• Press reports show that the few criminals who get their guns from retail outlets—most do not—can easily get fake IDs or use surrogate buyers, known as "straw purchasers," to buy their guns.

Prior restraints on rights are unconstitutional

1. Second Amendment protects an individual right

Report by the US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982):

• "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
• Supreme Court admits "the people" in the Second Amendment are the same "people" as in the rest of the Bill of Rights—In US. v. Verdugo-Urquidez the Court stated that "'the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… [and] it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

2. Courts agree that rights should be free from prior restraints

• Near v. Minnesota: In this case, the Supreme Court stated that government officials should punish the abuse of a right and not place prior restraints on the exercise of the right.
• What about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater?: The courts have stated that one cannot use his "freedom of speech" to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. And yet, no one argues that officials should gag everyone who goes into the theater, thus placing a prior restraint on movie-goers. The proper response is to punish the person who does yell "Fire." Likewise, citizens should not be "gagged" before exercising their Second Amendment rights, rather they should be punished if they abuse that right.

The Brady registration law is NOT working

General Accounting Office Study:

• The Brady Law has failed to result in the incarceration of dangerous criminals. After the first year and a half, there were only seven successful prosecutions for making false statements on Brady handgun purchase forms—and only three of them were actually incarcerated. With only three criminals sent to jail, one can hardly argue that the law is working to keep violent criminals from getting handguns on the street.
• The Brady Law has ERRONEOUSLY denied firearms to thousands of applicants. Over fifty percent of denials under the Brady Law are for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than felony convictions.
• Gun control advocates admit the Brady Law is not a panacea. According to a January, 1996 report by the General Accounting Office, "Proponents [of gun control] acknowledge that criminal records checks alone will not prevent felons from obtaining firearms."
• Criminals can easily evade the background checks by using straw purchasers: "Opponents of gun control note that criminals can easily circumvent the law by purchasing handguns on the secondary market or by having friends or spouses without a criminal record make the purchases from dealers."

Licensing or registration can lead to confiscation of firearms

• Step One: Registration. In the mid-1960's officials in New York City began registering long guns [rifles and shotguns]. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.
• Step Two: Confiscation. In 1992, a New York City paper reported that, "Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms… Spot checks are planned [for other homes]."
• Registration and Confiscation in California: The Golden State passed a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms in 1989. Banned guns could be legally possessed if they were registered prior to the ban. In the Spring of 1995, one man who wished to move to California asked the Attorney General whether his SKS Sporter rifle would be legal in the state. The citizen was assured the rifle was legal, and based on that information, he subsequently moved into the state. But in 1998, California officials reversed course and confiscated the firearm.
• Foreign Countries: Gun registration has led to confiscation in several countries, including Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and Bermuda. And in an exhaustive study on this subject, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has researched and translated several gun control laws from foreign countries. Their publication, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide documents how gun control (and confiscation) has preceded the slaughter and genocide of millions of people in Turkey, the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia and others.

People in imminent danger can die waiting for a firearms license

• In 1983, Igor Hutorsky was murdered by two burglars who broke into his Brooklyn furniture store. The tragedy is that some time before the murder, his business partner had applied for permission to keep a handgun at the store. Even four months after the murder, the former partner had still not heard from the police about the status of his gun permit.

The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right

• Arbitrary Delays: While New Jersey law requires applications to be responded to within thirty days, delays of ninety days are routine; sometimes, applications are delayed for several years for no readily apparent reason.
• Arbitrary Denials: Officials in New York City routinely deny gun permits for ordinary citizens and store owners because—as the courts have ruled—they have no greater need for protection than anyone else in the city. In fact, the authorities have even refused to issue permits when the courts have ordered them to do so.
• Arbitrary Fee Increases: In 1994, the Clinton administration pushed for a license fee increase of almost 1,000 percent on gun dealers. According to US News & World Report, the administration was seeking the license fee increase "in hopes of driving many of America's 258,000 licensed gun dealers out of business."

Officials cannot license or register a constitutional right

• The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers—even if such material is "communist political propaganda."

Definition of real "assault weapons"

• According to one of the preeminent experts in the field of firearms, Dr. Edward Ezell, a key characteristic of a true assault weapon is that it must have the capability of "full automatic fire." Similarly, the US Defense Department defines real assault weapons as "selective-fire weapons"—meaning that these guns can fire both automatically or semi-automatically.
• Anti-gun loonies in recent years have managed to define "assault weapons" as semi-automatic firearms which only externally resemble a military firearm. Dr. Edward Ezell notes that true assault weapons "were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire"—something which a semi-automatic firearm does not do.

Semi-automatic "assault rifles" are no different than many hunting rifles

• Officer William McGrath: "These [semi-automatic assault rifles] are little different than the semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been on the market since before World War II. The main difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks more 'military.'"
• "The term 'assault' rifle is really a misnomer as a true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon capable of switching from fully automatic to semi automatic and back with the flip of a lever."
• "The charge that the assault rifle holds more rounds than a 'legitimate' hunting rifle shows either a lack of knowledge or a deliberate twisting of the facts, as 10, 20 and 30 round magazines for 'legitimate' hunting rifles have been on the market for decades without the world coming to an end."

So-called assault weapons have never been the "weapon of choice" for criminals

(All of the following figures pre-date the "assault weapons" ban passed by Congress in 1994)

• Police View: Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon."
• New Jersey: The New York Times reported that, "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state… has been negligible, both sides agree." Moreover, New Jersey police statistics show that only .026 of 1 percent of all crimes involve "assault rifles."
• Nationwide: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1993 that violent criminals only carry or use a "military-type gun" in about 1 percent of the crimes nationwide.
• Knives more deadly: According to the FBI, people have a much greater chance of being killed by a knife or a blunt object than by any kind of rifle, including an "assault rifle." In Chicago, the chance is 67 times greater. That is, a person is 67 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death in Chicago than to be murdered by an "assault rifle." [Let’s ban cutlery!]
• Cops' own guns more deadly: So-called assault weapons are not menacing police officers nationwide. The FBI reports show that before the 1994 ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," no more than three officers were killed in any one year by such guns. In Contrast, police officers were more than three times as likely to be killed by their own guns than by "assault weapons."
• It would seem one can't have it both ways. If Congress wants to ban weapons that are dangerous to police, then it should begin by pushing for a ban on police officers' own weapons, since these guns kill far more often than "assault weapons." The same is true with knives and blunt objects. These instruments kill policemen more often than semi-automatic "assault weapons."
• Sarah Brady's own figures show that so-called assault weapons are not the criminal's "weapon of choice." A study published by Handgun Control, Inc. in November of 1995 shows that the overwhelming majority of guns used to murder police officers are not "assault weapons." The irony is that HCI uses a very inflated definition [a lie] of "assault weapon" and still can not demonstrate that they are used in over 50% of the crimes.
• Does tracing of crime guns show that "assault weapons" are the weapons of choice for criminals? No. Gun control advocates will often make the claim that so-called assault weapons are frequently used in crime. To justify this claim, such advocates will cite as "evidence" the fact that law-enforcement run a high percentage of traces on these types of firearms. But this is a classic example of circular reasoning: law enforcement arbitrarily run a high percentage of trace requests on "assault weapons," and then this figure is used to justify the "fact" that these guns are frequently used in crime. Consider the following:
• Tracing requests are not representative of all guns used in crime. The Congressional Research Service states that, "Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals." Moreover, BATF agents themselves have stated that, "ATF does not always know if a firearm being traced has been used in a crime."
• Tracing requests are not random samples. CRS notes that "ATF tracing data could be potentially biased because of screening conducted by local ATF agents prior to the submission of the tracing from." This means that police could, if they wanted, only trace so-called assault weapons. Would this mean that they are the only guns used in crime? No, it would just mean that law enforcement have a particular interest in tracing "assault weapons" over other guns.
• Tracing in L.A: That tracing is an unreliable measure of a gun's use in crime is clear. For example, in 1989 in Los Angeles, "assault rifles" represented approximately only 3% of guns seized, but 19% of gun traces.

Semi-automatic "assault weapons" are excellent for self-defense

Police Capt. Massad Ayoob:

• "The likelihood of multiple opponents who move fast, often wear body armor, know how to take cover, and tend to ingest chemicals that make them resistant to pain and shock, are all good reasons for carrying guns that throw a whole lot more bullets than six-shooters do."
• "All four of these factors make it likely that more of the Good Guys' bullets will be expended before the Bad Guys are neutralized. All of these factors, therefore, militate for a higher capacity handgun in the hands of the lawful defenders."

1. Drugs and alcohol can make criminals resistant to pain

• Arkansas: A drunk opened fire on an officer, who responded by firing 29 shots—15 of them striking the criminal. It was only the last—the 15th—bullet which finally killed the drunk and effectively stopped him from shooting.
• Illinois: Police shot a drug-induced criminal 33 times before the junkie finally dropped and was unable to shoot any longer.

2. Hi-capacity semi-autos can help decent people to defend themselves

• Los Angeles riots: Many of the guns targeted by so-called assault weapons bans are the very guns with which the Korean merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Those firearms proved to be extremely useful to the Koreans. Their stores were left standing while other stores around them were burned to the ground.
• The Korean merchants would probably agree with Capt. Massad Ayoob. When one is facing mob violence and the police are nowhere to be found, one needs a gun that shoots more than just six bullets. A ban on large capacity semi-automatic firearms will only harm one's ability to defend himself and his family.

The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own military rifles and handguns

Report by the US. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982):

• "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment… There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the/a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."
• The Supreme Court: In US. v. Miller, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense… [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

There is more—so much more: Download the PDF and read it. Google the appropriate keywords and phrases and you will find literally mountains of data showing that gun laws are the cause of the problem, not the cure.

The bottom line here is:

The police cannot protect you. It is your duty to you and your family to protect them and yourself.

Join and support the NRA.

Vote the anti-gun, anti-self-defense lunatic fringe out of office and keep them out.

Buy a high-capacity handgun and learn how and when to use it.

And if you have to use it, use it fast—without hesitation—and keep shooting the bastard until he stops wiggling.

It’s literally his funeral or yours: Which family do you want gathered around the casket?

No more Binghamtons, no more Virginia Techs.

Racist Russian Ad Features Obama

Russian PRAVDA notes racism, sloughs it off

An ice cream-making company in Yekaterinburg, Russia, is promoting a flavor of its ice cream in a racist advertisement using Barack Obama’s image.

The slogan of the chocolate-in-vanilla ice cream titled as “Duet” says: “The Flavor of the Week! Black in White!” The image of a black man standing against the background of the US Capitol was considered a manifestation of racism.

The Russian Company Voskhod (Sunrise), which designed the campaign, said that the image was not meant to carry any racist meaning in it. A spokesperson for the company said that the picture simply marked the presence of the black president in the White House.

Andrei Gubaidullin, the author of the advertisement, said his campaign was not linked to racism, because Russia, unlike the West, had a different point of view about ethnicity.

“This is not racism for Russia. It’s just fun,” the creative director of the advertising agency said.

The Russian nationalist online news site Pravda (Правда)—which ironically translates as Truth—noted the racism of the ad, but didn’t think it serious nor did it comment on the obvious insults to the US government.

I Don't Need No Brain, I Got GPS

This is the BMW of a Mr. Robert Jones of Doncaster, South Yorkshire, UK. Mr. Jones, a deliveryman, depends on a GPS navigation system, (which the Brits call Sat-Nav), in his work. “I rely on my sat-nav,” Mr. Jones said. "I couldn't do without it for my job.”

Naturally, he had one in his BMW.

On 22 March 2009, Mr. Jones was trying to find his way around Todmorden, West Yorkshire, when his GPS told him, “turn here.” Mr. Jones complied, even though the road looked a bit narrow, run-down and—well, odd.

The “road” was, in fact, part of the Pennine Way—a footpath used only by serious hikers.

“It kept insisting the path was a road, even as it was getting narrower and steeper, so I just trusted it,” Mr.Jones said.

Heeding the instructions from his GPS with a positively religious fervor, Mr. Jones followed the narrow and twisting footpath higher and higher, finally arrived at the top of the steep hill and proceeded down the other side.

His journey ended when the BMW crashed into a fortuitously-placed wire fence—at the brink of a 100-foot precipice—preventing Mr. Jones from plunging to an almost certain Darwin Award.

A recovery team using a four-wheel drive ATV took nine hours to haul the BMW away from the cliff edge.

“What a maroon,” Bugs Bunny might say—but let's be kind: Mr. Jones is far from being the only driver who—when switching on a GPS, switch off what few, functioning neurons many of them seem to possess.

In the UK alone, there have been more than 300,000 mishaps involving people paying more attention to their GPS than their common sense.

An ambulance crew transferring a patient from King George Hospital in Ilford, UK, to Mascalls Park Hospital near Brentwood—a 12 mile journey which should have taken about 30 minutes—were were sent on an eight-hour, 200 mile journey to the outskirts of Manchester by—you guessed it—a faulty GPS system, (the patient survived the journey, but I’m sure he really had to pee.)

A Queensland, Australia, truck driver, led astray by his GPS, drove onto a road totally unsuitable for heavy vehicles and crashed—narrowly avoiding an 260-foot drop.

Drivers following a GPS-recommended route through the village of Luckington, UK, have found themselves splashing into the River Avon—despite warning signs on both sides of the road and a large expanse of water straight ahead. Local villagers found themselves pulling an average of two cars a day out of the river.

Near the town of Glubczyce, Poland, a man following GPS directions drove his minivan straight into a lake. It seems he took a road closed a year before when the area was flooded to create a reservoir. "He ignored three road signs warning of a dead end,” a police spokesman said. “His GPS told him to drive straight ahead—and he did."

Back in the UK, GPS devices are directing vehicle traffic to a ferry crossing intended for foot-traffic only.

A GPS unit led a convoy of tourists astray in Utah, finally stranding them on the edge of a sheer cliff.

With little food or water, the group of 10 children and 16 adults from California used their GPS to plot a backcountry route from Bryce Canyon National Park to the Grand Canyon—but the device couldn't tell how rough the roads were. One vehicle got stuck in soft sand and two others ran low on fuel; the GPS then offered suggestions leading them onto the wrong dirt roads, which ended at a series of cliffs. The group—so lost it couldn't figure out how to backtrack their route—was finally rescued by Sheriff's officers.

In the same area, a merry band of GPS-equipped Belgian tourists ended up licking condensation off their minivan's windshield after being stranded on Four Mile Bench without water. Riders on all-terrain vehicles stumbled across the group.

One night in Bedford Hills, NY, a man—assiduously following the directions from his GPS—obediently drove onto the tracks of the Metro-North Railroad, where his vehicle became hopelessly stuck. Said driver and his passengers were able to abandon the car before a train crashed into it, causing a two-hour delay and eliciting howls of indignation from some 10,000 angry commuters.

One has to wonder about the conversation which took place in that car:

Tom: "I think we're lost."
Dick: "Can't be. I got GPS. Brand spankin' new."
Harry: "What's it say?"
Dick: "Says to turn right."
Tom: "What, here?"
Dick: "Yep. 'Immediate Right.' S'what it says."
Harry: "But those are railroad tracks."
Dick: "Can't be."
Tom: "Why not?"
Dick: "'Cause the GPS says turn right. Wouldn't say that for railroad tracks now, would it? Gotta be a road."
Harry: "Sure looks like railroad tracks."
Tom: "There are rails."
Dick: "It's dark. Mus' be lane stripes."
Harry: "Awfully narrow lane."
Tom: "And a big sign that says, 'Railroad Crossing.'"
Dick (turning right): "S'gotta mean up ahead. Here we go."
Tom: "OW! Awfully bumpy for a road!"
Harry: "OOF! What happened? Why aren't we moving?"
Dick: "Stuck. Mus' be a pothole. I'll back up."
Tom: "We're still not moving."
Dick (working the shift): "Can't seem to back her up."
Harry: "What's that?"
Tom: "What's what?"
Harry: "That light."
Dick: "Headlight, that's all."
Harry: "Only one?"
Dick: "Ain'cha never seen a car with only one light?"
Tom: “... it's... wiggling."
Dick: "Prolly working itself loose like the first one. Hope he makes it home okay."
Harry: "That's a TRAIN!"
Dick: "Can't be. GPS says we're onna road."
Tom: "THAT'S A TRAIN! GET OUT!"
Dick: "Tell ya what. I'll humor you guys, but you're gonna feel real silly when that beat-up ol' car drives by."
(All three leave the vehicle.)
Dick: "OW!"
Harry: "What's wrong?"
Dick: "Aw, I tripped over the lane stripe. Say, what's that noise? Sounds like... a tornado."
(A train zooms by, smashing into the car and dragging it down the tracks.)
Dick: "NOOOO!!! My... my... new GPS was in that car!"

But wait. There’s more!

There are new GPS systems not intended for mere cars or hikers as you can see at this article: GPS walkers for the elderly.

I can see the headlines now:

Elderly Man Rescued From Ledge Of Chrysler Building
Queens Nursing Home Resident, Bound for Restroom, Located In Yonkers

Ah, the wonders of modern technology.

Has Cold Fusion Been Verified By US Navy Lab?

Researchers have reported compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). The LENR process—also called "cold fusion"—may portend a limitless and environmentally-clean method for generating electricity. The group of Navy scientists describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons; subatomic particles which indicate nuclear reactions are taking place.

Their report—which injects new life into this controversial field—was presented 23 March at the American Chemical Society's National Meeting. It was among 30 papers on the topic presented during a four-day symposium, New Energy Technology, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion.

The study was undertaken at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, California, and published in the peer-reviewed journal, Naturwissenschaft, DOI: 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x (SpringerLink subscription required).

Co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D. said:

"Our finding is very significant… to our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device."

Fusion is the energy source which powers the sun and stars. Scientists have been striving to reproduce—in a controlled fashion—that power here on Earth. Fueled by deuterium—an abundant isotope of hydrogen easily extracted from seawater—fusion reactors would provide a clean and cheap source of electricity. For decades, prevailing fusion research concentrated on a sophisticated new genre of nuclear reactors able to withstand temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit—hence, often called “hot” fusion.

The first report on "cold fusion," presented in 1989 by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, was a global scientific sensation. In contrast to the huge, complex and tremendously expensive “hot” fusion reactors, Pons and Fleishmann claimed to have achieved nuclear fusion at comparatively "cold" room temperatures—in a simple, tabletop laboratory device termed an electrolytic cell.

Other researchers could not seem to reproduce Pons and Fleishmann’s results, and the field of cold fusion research declined. A stalwart cadre of scientists persisted, however, seeking solid evidence that nuclear reactions can occur at low temperatures. One problem in proving the existence of low-energy (cold) nuclear reactions involved the extreme difficulty in using conventional electronic instruments to detect the small number of neutrons produced in the process.

In their new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an electrode composed of nickel or gold wire into a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium or "heavy water" in a process called co-deposition. They passed electric current through the solution—causing a reaction within seconds—using a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles emitted, including any neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium atoms.

They examined the plastic microscopically, discovering patterns of "triple tracks;" tiny-clusters of three adjacent pits that appear to split apart from a single point, (see the photo above). The researchers say that the track marks were made by subatomic particles released when neutrons smashed into the plastic. Significantly, no such tracks were seen if the experiment was repeated using normal rather than heavy water. Mosier-Boss and colleagues believe the neutrons originated in nuclear reactions, perhaps from the combining or fusing deuterium nuclei.

"People have always asked 'Where's the neutrons?'" Mosier-Boss said. "If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons. We now have evidence that there are neutrons present in these LENR reactions."

They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions occurring in their experiment, including X-rays, tritium, (another isotope of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works—key to controlling it for practical purposes.

Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers cannot predict when—or if—LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications.

Paul Padley, a physicist at Rice University who reviewed Mosier-Boss's published work, said the study did not provide a plausible explanation of how cold fusion could take place in the conditions described.

"It fails to provide a theoretical rationale to explain how fusion could occur at room temperatures. And in its analysis, the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons," he told the Houston Chronicle. "The whole point of fusion is, you’re bringing things of like charge together. As we all know, like things repel, and you have to overcome that repulsion somehow."

Padley’s remarks in no way negate the SPAWAR team’s findings and those findings in no way negate Padley’s comments: Isaac Newton, in his Principia Mathematica, formulated the mathematical laws governing gravitational force, though Newton never understood what gravity was or how it attracted objects.

The Navy team has performed experiments and released the results of those experiments—a fundamental step in scientific inquiry. The next step is for other researchers to precisely reproduce the apparatus used by Mosier-Boss and her team, perform the same experiment the same way under the same conditions and see if they derive they same results. If they do, the following step is to attempt to explain exactly what is happening, why and what physical and chemical processes are involved.

Other speakers at the conference presented evidence supporting cold fusion, including Antonella De Ninno, a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment (Rome), who reported both excess heat and helium gas.

"We now have very convincing experimental evidence," De Ninno claimed.

Tadahiko Mizuno of Japan's Hokkaido University also reported excess heat generation and gamma-ray emissions.

All three research groups are currently exploring both experimental and theoretical studies in hopes of better understanding the cold fusion process well enough to commercialize it.

These experimental results may be due to a cold fusion/LENR process or they may be the effects of chemical or physical processes not yet understood. Clearly, something is going on in such experiments which requires further scrutiny. Whatever the ultimate explanation, science can only be enriched by answering the questions raised: There is no downside to exploring this matter to its definitive conclusion.

If these findings are, indeed, evidence of a cold fusion process and this process can be extenuated into a practical means of inexpensively generating electricity in large quantity, we may be witnessing the first steps of a discovery which will benefit mankind—not in a small way, but in a truly revolutionary fashion.

Those with high-speed connections may watch streaming videos from the ACS cold fusion conference at:

Session 1, Session 2

The Cold War Is Back!

Medvedev announces arms build-up, military revamping

Kremlin perceives threats from neighbors, NATO, US

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev caused chills to travel up spines in many nations yesterday when he announced plans to strengthen and revamp Russia’s military infrastructure and “most importantly” strategic nuclear forces.

In his 17 March speech to Russia’s Defense Ministry board Medvedev said:

Any analysis of the military and political situation in the world shows that in a number of regions serious potential for conflict remains. There is always the risk of local crises and international terrorism. Attempts to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on the borders of our country continue. All this requires a qualitative modernization of our Armed Forces to give them a new, forward-looking perspective. Despite the current financial difficulties, we can make all the necessary provisions.

The first challenge is improving the combat readiness of our troops, not just regular improvement but a quantum leap, most importantly in our strategic nuclear forces. They must be unequivocally ready to meet all the challenges necessary to ensure the military security of our nation. What is also on the agenda is the transfer of all combat units and formations to the status of permanent readiness. I want to stress that this is a key component of the new model or new image of the Armed Forces. [Emphasis mine]

The timing of Medvedev's announcement is likely a response to an ill-conceived overture from the White House:

Showing his characteristic lack of foreign-policy experience—and no understanding of the Russians whatsoever—Obama, in February, sent Medvedev a secret message, (since leaked to the press), offering to scrap US plans to place a ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would pressure Iran to cease development of its long-range missile and nuclear programs.

Even though the US defensive missile system is designed to shoot down missiles and not deliver nuclear or conventional warheads in an offensive role, the Kremlin has regarded it as a threat since the Bush administration announced plans for the system's deployment. As of this writing, the US still intends to deploy 10 Ground Based Interceptors (GBI) and a Patriot interceptor battery—manned by American crews—in Poland and a missile-tracking radar facility in the Czech Republic:

• A Ground Based Interceptor is a silo-launched missile which will track, intercept and destroy a ballistic missile before that missile and its warhead have re-entered the atmosphere. It has no warhead—using the kinetic energy of high-speed impact to destroy the enemy warhead.
• The Patriot system is a theater air defense missile battery capable of intercepting and destroying tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and combat aircraft. A Patriot missile has a range of 42 miles and a conventional warhead containing 198 pounds of explosive.

The Kremlin, through the thin veil of the Russian state news agency's Novosti, treated Obama's offer with disdain in a recent article.

News of Obama's secret offer to Moscow distressed Polish and Czech officials who, finally free of decades of Russo-Soviet terror and oppression are not anxious for it to return. The deployments will also add a not-inconsiderable boost to the economies of both nations.

But it isn't only the Czechs and Poles who are wringing their hands: Much of Europe is nervous about the reprise of Russian aggression: The First and Second wars with Chechnya, Russia's April 2008 cyber-attack on Estonia, its August 2008 invasion of Georgia and it's bullying squabble with Ukraine, (in which Russia turned off Ukraine's supply of heating gas during the dead of winter), seem, to many, a return to Russian pugnacity and expansionism. The Russians even claim possession of the North Pole, having used a submarine to plant a flag on the ocean floor there.

At a time of economic crisis in the US and Representative Barney Frank's (Loony-Mass.) pressure on Obama to cut spending in vital military programs, a time when the US needs Russia—to keep Iran on a short leash and to help keep US military supply lines open in Afghanistan—a Russian politician would see Obama's humble offering as nothing but a sign of weakness, and act accordingly.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962, the Soviets placed nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles in Cuba—ninety miles from the shores of the United States. After a tense, two-week battle-of-wills between US President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, the Kremlin agreed to remove their weapons from Cuba. Khrushchev blinked first.

Undoubtedly, the Kremlin views this as almost the same scenario: The difference being that unlike the intended defense system for Eastern Europe, those Soviet Missiles could only be used offensively—each warhead killing potentially millions of Americans.

This time, however, Obama blinked first—and early in the game: Putin and his puppet Medvedev won't forget that. With his foolish show of weakness so early after assuming office, Obama has lost a very great deal of ground to the Kremlin which he may never regain. He’s no Jack Kennedy.

Who leaked Obama’s missive to the press? The first mention of it appears to have been in the Russian newspaper Kommersant. This strongly suggests that the story was intentionally leaked by the Kremlin as a way of showing that the Obama administration was weak on the idea of the defense of Europe—strengthening the Russian position on the matter. The “leak” will also tend to make things more difficult for the White House in dealings with Eastern European—and other—governments.

Obama would do well to remember that for decades, the Kremlin and, more recently, Dictator Prime Minister, (former KGB colonel), Putin have been known for playing—evil—games: indeed, they are masters, they are ruthless and they are playing those aggressive, expansionist games once more. Obama would also do well to remember who the game of Russian Roulette is named after. And why.

“I'd rather have the United States be the world's policeman than the Soviet Union be the world's jailer”

—Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

Obama Manages NOT To Offend Irish PM

Fountains at the White House ran green in celebration of St. Patrick’s Day as Obama welcomed the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen.

At a White House press conference, Mr. Cowen presented—as per tradition—Obama with a Waterford Crystal bowl filled with shamrocks. The two leaders gave speeches reaffirming the friendship and solidarity between their two countries. The only glitch occurred when, about twenty seconds into what he thought was his speech, Mr. Cowen realized he was repeating Obama’s speech, which had accidentally been recycled through the teleprompter due to a technical problem.

Perhaps Obama is starting to get the hang of this—we’ll see.

Obama To Open Secret Laboratories to Germany? Maybe not!

Obama To Open Secret Laboratories to Germany: That was the headline in Spiegel Online, the internet arm of Germany's Der Spiegel—one of Europe's largest weekly magazines with a circulation of more than one million per week.

On Monday, US Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano and Germany's Minister of Education and Research Annette Schavan, signed an agreement on the future scientific and technological cooperation between the two nations in the field of civil security.

Whether this cooperation goes so far as the United States opening it's secret labs to Germany, as Der Spiegel maintains, is questionable.

Maddeningly, outrageously and unacceptably, I was unable to locate a copy of this public document anywhere online—including US and German government sites. However, Heise.de claims to have obtained the full text of the document.

I have provided a synopsis of their analysis below:

The agreement was merely a "framework for the promotion, development and facilitation of bilateral scientific and technological cooperation activities in the context of civil security," and there is nothing specific in the agreement about the sharing of secret information.

The main points of the 31-page agreement are the:

• Defense and the detection of threats to civil security and response to these threats
• Forensic Science and placement in relation to security threats
• Protection of critical infrastructure and key resources
• Crisis response and consequence management and mitigation of serious events

Special attention is applied to the:

• Development of solutions to the security of people
• Development of solutions which increase the security of individuals without restricting their freedom

“Conversely, this means that solutions which do in fact limit civil liberties could also be developed, even if they are not the main focus of research efforts.”

Obama Manages To Offend President Of Brazil As Well

Obama 0 for 2 as he offends two Heads of State in a row

Obama and his staff managed to offend Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, (known simply as Lula), before he even arrived.

Obama arranged a White House meeting during a telephone call to Lula, the two leaders agreeing to meet on 17 March—St. Patrick’s day. Obama also agreed to meet with Ireland’s Taoiseach, (tea-shock, equivalent to Prime Minister), Brian Cowen and formally celebrate—you guessed it—St. Patrick’s Day.

Isn’t there anyone in the White House familiar with the basic uses of a calendar? Hair-dressers don’t make such bumbling goofs, how on Earth does Obama manage to do so?

Lula’s trip was pushed forward from Tuesday because, remarkably, someone in the White House possessed of more than two working neurons, dimly realized that it made somewhat less sense to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with a Brazilian than an Irishman—and kudos to that rocket scientist.

Lula’s aides and the Brazilian press interpreted this as a snub, saying the offhand schedule shuffling made Latin America once again look like an afterthought.

Adding yet another insult to the mess, the White House announcement of the Obama-Lula meeting misspelled Lula’s name as "Luis Ignacio" and put "Lula"—a nickname that decades ago became a legal part of the Brazilian leader's name—in quotes.

How will Obama treat the Prime Minister of Ireland? Serve a traditional English breakfast? Pipe him into the White House with a rousing rendition of God Save the Queen? Re-gift Cowen with the Winston Churchill biography the UK prime Minister gave him?

The stumble for statesmanship continues.

Life, the Universe and Obama

Note: Having no desire to answer the same questions time and again in different comments in different articles, I am posting this primarily for the referral of future commenters. So please consider this a FAQ of sorts.

As far as Obama continually insulting the British, (not to mention other dignitaries), and my pointing out the facts as I understand them:

I am not any sort of an apologist for the British, (or, you will find, anybody-the-hell-else): My father was treated quite—I'll be civil—shabbily by Brits as an American stationed in England for a time during World War II and thereafter never had a kind word for them—far from it. I have nothing against the British as a people—many of whom are among the warmest, friendliest people I've ever met—I'm a rabid Dr. Who fan and I have respect for Her Majesty The Queen as an entity separate from her government. But for reasons of personal experience I have absolutely no love for the British government—again, far from it.

Putting my personal feelings aside—as Obama or any holder of political office in the United States is expected to—I recognize the blatantly obvious political, diplomatic, military, economic and scientific needs to maintain the alliance the US has had with the UK for generations.

As to my motives for anything I say about any politician:

I am neither a democrat or republican. In my observation and experience, all politicians are lying scoundrels, (or become so, soon after taking office), possessed of their own agendas which always benefit them and rarely the voters. Consequently, when I cast my ballot, I vote for the lesser of two evils; sometimes the lesser scoundrel is a democrat sometimes a republican, sometimes a libertarian and when the candidates tie as low-life miscreants I may write-in Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt or my cat. Those who peruse this site in its entirety will note that I point out McCain's idiocy as readily as Obama's. I am, as of the above date, preparing to lambast some other republican scoundrels—stay tuned.

Politicians are civil servants, no matter how much they like to perceive themselves as civil masters. They work for you. They work for me. Political malefactors of any persuasion need to have their chicanery and bad behavior pointed out.

Do I believe it's my job to do so? No. Do I feel I'm going to Save All Mankind? Don't be silly. I am simply exercising the natural and inalienable right that all people have: I'm putting in my two-cents. Take it or leave it.

Regarding Obama's disgraceful behavior towards the British, the question was asked:

"But how can we expect someone whose grandfather was tortured by the British under Churchill to feel the same way about him?"

It is entirely possible that Obama's grandfather was tortured by the British—I wouldn't doubt that such a horrible thing may have occurred. I find it curious, however, that there seems to be only one media report on this torture story which has been recounted—essentially verbatim—in many, many media outlets. Yet Obama himself has said nothing about such torture and his own account of his grandfather's treatment by the British in his book Dreams of my Father differs from that media account. They can't both be true. Where does the truth lie?

Regardless of the truth of that allegation, the President is expected to act on behalf of the American People—not on his own personal hatreds. Look at Nixon, who, as President, acted on little but his own personal hatreds. Want him back?

As to Churchill:

"Sir Winston Churchill has been named the greatest Briton of all time in a nationwide poll attracting more than a million votes."
(ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2509465.stm)

The British, under Queen Victoria, supported the Confederate States during the American Civil War. What do you suppose would be the American reaction—or Obama's—if a newly-elected British prime minister rudely and unceremoniously booted out a bust of Abraham Lincoln at 10 Downing Street? (Note: Please read this article in its entirety for my complete take on this issue.

Winston Churchill met with Charles de Gaulle and Joseph Stalin at the end of World War II—two men he passionately loathed. Under trying circumstances, he behaved as a gentleman toward them no matter how much he groused about them behind their backs. Obama could learn a great deal from Churchill. Don't hold your breath, though.

And then there's the slave thing:

"Michelle Obama's great-great-great grandfather worked as a slave"
"Obama's Ancestors Were Slave Owners"

Now, I'm Scots-Irish. You won't hear me going on about the bloody Viking invasions of Scotland and Ireland and the resultant murder and enslavement of my ancestors or how modern-day Scandinavians should be made to feel ashamed and to share in the guilt of those atrocities, because it would be just damn silly. Lunatic.

You won't hear me going on about how the Irish, (especially Irish Catholics), under British domination—slavery—in the 1800's starved to death in the hundreds of thousands, were deprived of most of what we consider basic human rights, were treated as little better than animals, were branded criminals for little or no offense and transported—men, women and children—to penal colonies in Australia and elsewhere.

Yet there are those—white and black—who refuse to put the slavery thing behind them and still gnash their teeth and beat their breasts about it, just as there are people today who hate all living Jews because a handful of Jews, who died 2,000 effing years ago, crucified Christ—never mind that Jesus himself was a Jew. Lunacy.

Yes, all these things are horrible to read about. Painful to contemplate. But they are things of the past: The actions, hatreds, travails and sufferings of people generations and centuries dead. It's history. I, for one, choose to live in the here and now.

White Guilt:

How many of you reading this own slaves? No one? Neither do I. Neither did my parents, nor theirs, nor theirs, nor theirs...

I did not cause slavery. I did not promote slavery. I did not end slavery. I was not involved at all.

I am not responsible—and I refuse to be held responsible by anyone in any way, shape or form—for anything, anywhere, which occurred before I was even born. If you choose to believe differently, you are mentally unbalanced.

Black Angst:

On this page: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/11/black_angst.html a self-professed black American left, in part, this plaintive comment:

"...try to imagine what it has been like for generations of blacks trying to move past the effects of over 200 years of slavery, followed by another 100 years of oppression thanks to our good buddy Jim Crow and others. 300 years. Three HUNDRED Years. 40 years is not enough time for all of those feelings to heal or to move past the results of centuries of institutionalized racism." [Emphasis, mine].

My response is this:

Crap.

What a lame, racist, excuse to blame others for the inner misery in which you have chosen to wallow.

Go to Japan sometime. You'll be treated—almost certainly—very well because it is in their culture to be polite. Whatever color you are—as long as you aren't Japanese—ask a man there for permission to date his daughter and all of a sudden you're a gai-jin pal, and boy-o-boy then you'll see the politeness vanish and the racism appear.

I've been to countries where there hasn't been slavery in a lot more than three hundred years and people of other colors or simply different nationalities are nonetheless treated differently—often insufferably and sometimes violently so. If you are fortunate, you will be tolerated.

I'm white and I've been treated differently by, (some), black neighbors, shopkeepers, politicians—even police officers—simply because of my skin color. I wasn't unkind to them, never said a bad word to them, but they reacted to me as though I had personally bought and sold their great-granddaddies. Sometime their behavior toward me was standoffish, sometimes harsh, sometimes threatening. Two of them burned my house down, so I don't live in that neighborhood anymore. Racists, pure and simple. Their racism is their problem, not mine: I've got better things to do.

Their words, actions and attitudes didn't change my behavior, my opinions or my self-esteem and certainly never have and never will have any part whatsoever in defining who I am or how I feel about myself. I define who I am; other people—living or dead—do not.

Read the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud—read history. This—slavery, racism—isn't an American thing and it isn't a recent thing; its been going on in thousands of places for thousands of years and—sad as it may be—things aren't going to be any different when you wake up tomorrow or the next day or the day after that.

So listen up, Bub. I don't give a levitating rodent's patootie if you're black, white, brown or yellow, or what kind personal hells you have decided to create for yourself. If you are going to whine about it, moan about it, despair about it and "oh, poor me" about it—all the while sitting on your hands and waiting for things to change—you are going to waste whatever life you have left. And it won't be my doing or Jefferson Davis' doing or Jim Crow's doing. It will be your doing.

Whatever you may think about Obama and however Obama may feel about this issue, you can credit him with one thing; putting it behind him long enough to make himself the first black President. Think about that.

As long as people, whatever their heritage, insist on perceiving the world in terms of color—racially, which is... now let's not always see the same hands... yes, Johnny, it's racism—their angst and guilt will continue unabated: There will always be a part of them that is miserable, there will always be a part of them which lives in fear, and they will have no one—living, dead or yet to be born—to blame but themselves.

It sure as hell ain't my fault.

Having said all that, lets again explore Obama's behavior toward the British:

Every President is expected—indeed, required—to behave as a statesman.

My grandfather was born in 1873—he was alive when Custer was. At one point, in Texas, the neighbors—best friends—of my grandfather and grandmother were—the only appropriate word is "slaughtered”—by Indians and my grandparents had to flee their home, barely escaping the same fate.

Now that was bad enough, but what if my grandfather or grandmother, (perish the thought, and may they rest in peace), had been captured and tortured by the Indians? And what if one of their descendants, (and there are a great many; my grandparents had 28 children. No, that's not a misprint), what if one of their descendants were elected President of the United States? How would the American people today expect—require—that President to behave toward the Crow or the Sioux or the Kiowa or the Comanche?

The President is expected to behave like a head of state and not a racist or Anglophobe or Russophobe and so-on ad infinitum.

(Before the amateur mind-readers out there start howling, I have many friends who represent several Native American Nations, (tribes, to the uninformed)—and Lou, if you're reading this, I mean you especially, dear.)

But lets cut to the chase and look at the very essence of the question regarding Presidential behavior:

Should the President of the United States—a public servant and the ultimate representative of the American people, whose decisions and actions affect certainly over 300,000,000 people and potentially billions—let his personal feelings color those decisions rather than basing them on the pros and cons of the facts alone? Should he not be held to the absolute highest standards?

Let's look at a comparatively recent event. Please keep in mind that the situation was far more complex than I am making it appear here, and therefore this may be considered by many a simplistic view—I won't argue that. Whether history ultimately reveals it to be true or not true, it nevertheless serves as an excellent example:

Many believe the deciding factor in President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 seems to have been that Saddam Hussein—in Bush's words—"tried to kill my dad."
(ref: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/)

The bottom line is this:

When a man is elevated to the office of President, he damn well should act like The President—the ultimate representative and symbol of the People of the United States—and not a neurotic, angst-ridden ninny, who constantly embarrasses himself, his office and the American People.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton:

"It's the Office, stupid."

 

Other comments, or salient portions thereof and my responses:

I include them because I feel they feel they belong in this kinda-sorta FAQ, for reasons I hope are obvious.

(Note: previously I was using "JS-Kit" to handle my comments, became disenchanted with it and removed it. In the process and despite JS-Kit's indications to the contrary, some comments were, alas, lost. I have no idea why some were lost and others remained. My apologies. I have yet to intentionally remove a comment no matter how oafish.)

Concerning the Thursday, February 5, 2009 Global Warming piece at: http://amccright.blogspot.com/2009/02/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor.html

Anonymous... said 1:
"...you're just a lying bastard..."

Thank your for your crude, infantile and insulting comment. I will deign to answer it, even though you hadn't the guts or civility to simply present an opposing point of view—which I would have been happy to read and to which I would have politely responded. Your churlish and vehement comment convinces me that the article shattered your pathetic, ill-informed, world view, and you're too much of a simpering cretin to face reality. The next time you wish to leave a comment, state it in a gentlemanly manner and you will receive a gentlemanly response in turn.

So. "...you're just a lying bastard..."

I'd like to think I'm not "just" anything.

As to the bastard part, my birth certificate indicates my parents were married at the time of my birth, so, no; I am apparently not a bastard. Not that such a silly thing matters.

As for being a liar: I am neither a lawyer, Hollywood actor, politician, talk-show host, union organizer, journalist, banker, broker, car salesman, lobbyist, real estate agent or evangelist. I am not a member of or associated with the United Nations, Handgun Control Inc., Current TV, The View, the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or the American Medical Association, nor do I have an agenda to promote.

Generally speaking, lying stems through fear. I am not afraid of you or—since my grandmother passed away in 1965—anybody else.

That being said, I do believe in civility: If someone thinks it important that I hear the intimate details of the surgery they underwent at the hands of their proctologist, I will feign interest. Though, after half-an-hour or so, I will suddenly remember an appointment.

Concerning the Thursday, March 12, 2009 article: Obama Just Loves To Insult Our British Allies at:
http://amccright.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-just-loves-to-insult-our-british.html

Anonymous said... 4
"There are more complex issues here than you are willing to admit."

Ye Gods, another amateur mind-reader! Just what the heck are you talking about, Bub? Enlighten us, please.

I submit that, perhaps things are simpler than you are able to grasp.

There is nothing complex about courtesy. There is nothing complex about decorum. There is nothing complex about maintaining the dignity of your office in the eyes of the world... Civility is simple—unless, of course, you are anonymously insulted by someone implying you are lying.