Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

borrowed form Fact Check.

By CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

(AP) President Barack Obama speaks at a town hall meeting at Fox Senior High School in Arnold, Mo.,...
Full Image
At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.

(AP) President Barack Obama speaks during a town hall meeting Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at Fox Senior...
Full Image
THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

---

OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

---

OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

---

100 Days of Obama's Presidency: Serious Questions on National Security Strategies

While marking the first hundred days of a new presidency is a tradition that dates back to the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the focus of media hype and pundit analysis usually focuses on domestic policies--grading how effectively a new leader can shape Washington's agenda. Matters of foreign policy and national security, on the other hand, do not lend themselves readily to a 100-day agenda.

President Obama, however, has presumptively reversed many long-standing national security policies since taking over the White House. The speed and lack of transparent analysis and robust debate on these choices raises serious questions about the prudence and efficacy of national security decision-making in the new White House. The Administration must develop more deliberate means for formulating its national security policies and immediately move to review the rash decisions made since taking office.

Leading or Campaigning?

On the most pressing national security matters--Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (despite the White House rhetoric from the contrary)--the Obama Administration has largely continued the strategic course laid out by the Bush Administration. This makes sense. U.S. vital national interests do not change because the party holding the presidency shifts. Neither do the facts on the ground, the resources available to the nation, or the enemy's objectives. It is therefore not surprising that the Administration would continue to advance the nation's interest in both parts of the world.

In contrast, on almost every other 100-day "national security initiative," the Administration has directed shifts in direction without clear strategic rationale.

Change on Cuba

The President declared that "50 years" of U.S. policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship. This explanation is fatuous. If the U.S. had followed a similar strategy with the Soviet Union, it would have abandoned containment and left Russia and half of Europe controlled by a nuclear-armed evil empire. What is most troubling and unexamined with this decision is how other dictators will interpret the seriousness of U.S. opposition to a dictatorial regime and its willingness to persevere against oppression and systemic violations of human and civil rights.

Dumbing Down Missile Defense

The President approved a cut of about 15 percent of the Pentagon's budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe. In addition, the White House downplayed the U.S. response to provocative missile launches by Iran and North Korea, as well as failing to obtain a serious U.N. Security Council response to either incident. Despite the advance of the North Korean and Iranian long-range missile programs, the Administration justified its decision by declaring it was more important to focus on "regional missile threats."

The rationale for this decision is opaque. The ballistic missile threat has not diminished; in fact it is growing. The need to defend the United States and Western Europe has not changed. Abrupt changes in missile defense programs (that have been under development for over a decade) make no sense.

Gutting the Defense Budget

In a speech previewing the impending release of next year's defense budget, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced deep cuts in procurement programs. In addition, the Administration is phasing-out supplemental spending, shifting the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into the "core" Pentagon budget. That will leave even less money for buying new equipment.

Gates justified the decision as eliminating "Cold War" weapons systems, including the F-22 stealth fighter aircraft and next-generation Navy destroyer. All the programs named by Gates came into development after the fall of the Soviet Union and were justified and funded by a succession of both Democratic and Republican Congresses and Presidents.

Gates also announced these decisions before the Pentagon had even completed the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) or a White House National Security Strategy (NSS)--documents that are supposed to provide the strategic rationale for such decisions. The decisions were driven not by national security needs but by a desire to rein in Pentagon spending. Projected Administration defense budgets over the next five years may underfund defense spending by over a trillion dollars.

Ho-Hum on Homeland Security

Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies since 9/11. Both the President and the secretary of homeland security have been reticent on the threat of transnational terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security has shown signs of reversing Bush Administration strategies on border security and immigration enforcement.

The Administration lacks a coherent approach to homeland security and has adopted these steps before undertaking the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR).

Detainee and Counterterrorism Policy in Disarray

The President has promised the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and repudiated interrogation policies. In addition, the Administration has been unclear about its support for vitally important legislation reauthorizing critical investigation tools granted under the USA PATRIOT Act. While the President has dismissed Bush's policies on combating terrorism, the Administration has not offered a credible alternative to address the pre-9/11 problems identified by the 9/11 commission. This gap could leave the nation at risk.

Reset on National Security

The lesson of the first 100 days is that the Administration needs to start over on national security. It should:

* Reconsider dramatic and unwarranted missile defense and Pentagon procurement cuts and ill-considered changes in counterterrorism and homeland security policy;
* Finalize and implement changes in reorganizing the National Security Council and use cabinet officials and the council, not unaccountable czars, to develop critical national security policies; and
* Make a serious effort to develop and engage with Congress and the American people on the QDR, QHSR, and NSS.

Presidents must keep the nation safe, free, and prosperous for four years, not 100 days. The White House has a lot more work to do.

Things I ponder!

1. Who was really on Air Force 1 as it flew over N.Y.?

Hint he wears a keffiyeh and was really looking to see ground zero. I wonder why?

2. Carla Brunei's feet are huge.

3. Oh yeah! Now that Arlen Spector has switched parties shouldn't that be considered "fraud upon constituency"?

'Access Hollywood' Falsely Suggests Prejean in Danger of Losing Crown

Segment hypes Prejean’s late arrival for appointment with Donald Trump and suggests her outspokenness unfitting of Miss California.

By Jeff Poor

Is Donald Trump angry at Miss California Carrie Prejean? Or is it just another trumped up charge from the liberal media?.

The April 22 episode of “Access Hollywood” teased viewers that Miss California was under a serious threat of losing her crown – since she was late for a meeting with Donald Trump, the organizer of the Miss USA pageant in which Prejean was the runner-up, and that her position on same-sex marriage somehow contradicted what Miss California’s position was supposed to be.



“New and serious trouble for Miss California you will only find out here,” “Access Hollywood” co-host Nancy O’Dell announced in the show’s teaser.

“Access Hollywood” co-host Billy Bush seemed to think it was a big deal Prejean was late for an appointment with Trump.

“Our camera caught her marching in the Donald’s office – late, and that made Trump a grump,” co-host Billy Bush reported. “Twenty minutes late to meet the very punctual Trumpster, maybe not a great start for Miss California’s Carrie Prejean.”

However, upon leaving the meeting, Prejean gave no indication of having been admonished.

“Forty minutes later, a still smiling Miss California left Trump Tower,” Bush added.

The segment featured footage of “Access Hollywood” reporters peppering Prejean with questions, undeterred by the fact that most of them had already been asked and answered during her many national TV appearances.

“Access Hollywood” also interviewed Keith Lewis, the co-executive director of Miss California USA. He told Bush he disagreed with Prejean’s view of same-sex marriage, and hinted that he would like to see Prejean take another course with her political views, but her state crown was safe.

“You know, she will continue as long as she is able to serve our state and right now she’s speaking from Carrie Prejean’s position,” Lewis said. “And hopefully real soon, she’s going to be back speaking from Miss California’s position.”

But technically, Prejean is speaking from Miss California’s position – or at least the position of a majority of Californians. In November, California voters adopted Proposition 8, which established marriage as a union between a man and a woman, by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin.

Still, that didn’t stop the “Access Hollywood” co-hosts from insinuating Prejean was in some sort of trouble for speaking out against same-sex marriage.

Blogger Comment: Me I expect to see Ms Prejean on the fall season of the Apprentice, even though I have never watched a single episode in its entirety.Or perhaps as a personal representative of Trump Corp on a trip for "Aid to Africa", which I just made up.

Why Thomas Friedman is wrong about the National Ignition Facility

By Hugh Gusterson

Tom Friedman's brain is flat. That is the only conclusion I can reach after reading his New York Times piece on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility (NIF). A flat brain cannot tolerate complexity. It turns things--such as globalization and laser facilities--into cartoon versions of themselves.

The recently finished NIF is set to be the world's most powerful laser system. It's a remarkable piece of engineering. The size of a football stadium, its 192 laser arms are aligned to within 100 microns. They were largely assembled by robots to keep them super-clean, and they must converge within a few microns and a few billionths of a second of one another in order to create an evanescent star within the laboratory. Delivering more than the entire energy supply of the U.S. electrical grid for a few billionths of a second, the laser strikes a tiny pellet of tritium and deuterium and creates transitory pressures and temperatures greater than those inside the sun--and all of this just a few hundred yards from a suburban housing estate.

It's not clear whether Friedman knows about the NIF's nuclear weapons connection and decided to leave it out, or whether he cut so many corners in writing his piece that he wasn't aware of it."

Friedman touted the NIF as a possible solution to the nation's energy problems. In his characteristically turbocharged prose, he asks, "What if a laser-powered fusion energy power plant that would have all the reliability of coal, without the carbon dioxide, all the cleanliness of wind and solar, without having to worry about the sun not shining or the wind not blowing, and all the scale of nuclear, without all the waste, was indeed just 10 years away or less? That would be a holy cow game-changer."

He does note (at the end of the column, of course, where it won't be seen by many readers), that he isn't sure NIF can be made to work as a viable commercial technology. But much of his golly-gosh evocation of NIF (complete with a comparison to the USS Enterprise from Star Trek) reads like a weak paraphrase of shovel-ready prose from the lab's public relations department. Surely New York Times readers have a right to expect more from a high-profile columnist than an embellished press release.

Here are a number of important points Friedman did not mention: Although the NIF has been funded through the Stockpile Stewardship Program for the nuclear weapons complex and presented to Congress as a vital facility for training a new generation of nuclear weapon scientists--ensuring that aging U.S. nuclear weapons continue to work--remarkably, the words "nuclear weapons" never appear in Friedman's column. Friedman is right that the NIF could be a prototype for a fusion energy reactor, and indeed, many Livermore scientists were enthusiastic about working on it for just this reason, but New York Times readers deserve to know that, thus far, this supposedly miraculous energy technology has been funded entirely by the nuclear weapons budget.

Although NIF has become a more open facility recently, in the past those who worked on it at Livermore needed security clearances, and the details of the target capsule design were long classified because of their relevance to hydrogen bomb physics. Many New York Times readers might feel a little differently about Friedman's miraculous new green energy technology if they knew that it was so closely tied to nuclear weapons development, and that the United States presumably would be concerned if some countries (India and Japan come to mind) began to develop such fusion reactors themselves because it could help them better understand the science of hydrogen bombs. We don't need to repeat the mistakes of the Atoms for Peace program, when the U.S. government enthusiastically encouraged the development of nuclear energy technology all over the world in blithe ignorance of the proliferation dangers this would entail.

It's not clear whether Friedman knows about the NIF's weapons connection and decided to leave it out, or whether he cut so many corners in writing his piece that he wasn't aware of it. I appreciate that, in the harsh world of a twice-a-week columnist, deadlines are a brute fact, but there are times when a column isn't yet ready for prime time.

Friedman also tells us that, if we want a follow-on to NIF, "a pilot [fusion energy plant] would cost about $10 billion--the same as a new nuclear power plant." There is no mention of a source for the cost estimate, which is simply stated as fact. Not only does Freidman seem to have accepted a publicist's number as true; he never mentions that Livermore originally promised that the NIF would cost $1.2 billion and open for business in 2001. Instead, it has cost around $4 billion (estimates vary depending on what you count) and construction wasn't completed until this year--eight years behind schedule. In other words, buyer beware when it comes to Livemore's cost estimates for such technology. I once asked a senior manager for the NIF how they came up with the initial $1.2 billion cost estimate. I naively thought he'd tell me that they added up all of the costs for wiring, steel, glass, and labor, but somehow underestimated. Instead he told me, with astonishing frankness, that they decided how much they thought Congress was willing to spend and worked back from there.

Given that early estimates in the 1950s substantially underestimated the cost of commercial nuclear energy, we might be suspicious of cost estimates today for a fusion plant that, by amazing coincidence, have it costing the same as a nuclear energy reactor.

The holy grail of laser fusion is "ignition"--getting more energy out than you put in. "Once the lab proves that it can get energy gain from this laser-driven process," a breakthrough "the NIF expects to achieve" in two to three years, we can proceed to the next step, Friedman writes. Not "if," but "once." But is the NIF assured to achieve ignition? According to some accounts, there have been difficulties focusing the laser beams at high energies. Additionally, early tests showed the lasers shattering the glass lenses at the high energies needed to approach ignition. Nor does Friedman mention that Nova, the predecessor to NIF, also was supposed to achieve ignition, but Livermore scientists later found that, due to an error in their calculations, they had dramatically underestimated the energy required for ignition. Given these uncertainties, it's irresponsible and misleading for Friedman to speak of ignition as if it's assured.

This has implications for another issue that Friedman doesn't raise--the expense of running a fusion reactor. He talks about the initial construction costs, but that's all. For a fusion reactor to be a viable energy source, it would have to be fired as many as thousands of times a day, but this puts immense stress on the lenses and can burn them out. It's far from clear that the economics can be made to work.

As one of the few people in the country who has written consistently about Livermore, I often lament that the NIF--one of the most expensive science programs in the nation's history and an extraordinary technical accomplishment for all its problems--hasn't received the press coverage it deserves. And I'm in broad agreement with Friedman's conclusion: "We need to make a few big bets on potential game-changers. . . . At the pace we're going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us." But that doesn't mean we should repeat the mistakes that we made in the 1950s when techno-enthusiasts such as Friedman helped incite the global efflorescence of nuclear energy while minimizing the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation and the difficulties of disposing of nuclear waste. By abnegating his responsibilities as a journalist, giving us instead PR masquerading as reportage, Friedman would lead us into the era of nuclear fusion with our eyes wide shut.

Going Going ........ go--, its closer than we think. :Another report on the NYT

April 28, 2009 --

BEETHOVEN and Bach could become the latest victims of the New York Times Co.'s financial crisis.

Rumors are raging that top suits have discussed putting classical radio station WQXR (96.3 FM) on the block to shore up the company's dwindling cash stash, which, The Post reported last week, is down to $34 million after debts are weighed in. The Times itself is dropping sections and demanding huge cutbacks at The Boston Globe.

Allan Sniffen, who runs the influential New York Radio Message Board, told Page Six: "It would make sense for the New York Times, and the rumors that make the most sense usually have legs." As to how much the station is worth, Sniffen said, "In this market and with the state of radio? Anyone's best guess. Maybe $50 million?"

WQXR, which plays such artists as Joshua Bell, Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma and has been owned by the Times since 1944, has never been a big moneymaker. In Arbitron's New York radio station ratings for March, WQXR ranks a distant 18th place for the number of listeners it has in an average quarter-hour.

Sniffen said the Times may also want to consider leasing WQXR's frequency. "They would still own it and might be able to sell it for more later in a better economy," he said. "In the meantime, it probably would generate more money than the station currently does."

One interested party might be ESPN, which is said to want an FM outlet for its WEPN (1050 AM) sports programming, which includes Knick, Jet and Ranger games but can't be heard clearly in parts of the metro area. Several months ago, ESPN was reported to have talked with Emmis Communications about leasing low-rated rock station WRXP (101.9 FM), although no deal was made.

An ESPN rep didn't return our call. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said, "We don't comment on rumors concerning potential acquisitions or divestitures

Obama's Good Cop-Bad Cop Scam

Cross posted from American Thinker
April 28, 2009

By Lee Cary
President Obama may deplore enhanced interrogation techniques, but he's learned a few things from cops and criminals.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer's article entitled "The Sting, in Four Parts" may have missed one part. The good cop bad cop scam.

Krauthammer listed four parts to "The Sting":

(1) The Whopper, Obama's phony computation of deficit reductions;

(2) The Puzzler, his brazen misrepresentation of domestic discretionary spending;

(3) The Non Sequitur, his false connection between the economic crisis and radical reforms in healthcare, education and energy; and

(4) The Swindle, the unsustainable level of federal spending he proposes.


All four parts of "The Sting" pertain to government spending and rely on the bait-and-switch move. Obama preaches fiscal responsibility and then proposes a cosmic-sized budget. For packaging purposes, people focus on his words (the bait) and miss the switch to real numbers. He uses words as a divine-like, self-actualizing language event. (Let there be light.)

The Fifth Sting is about marketing and selling. The good cop bad cop routine is an effective enhanced persuasion technique, even now being used in the torture debate. It works this way.

President Obama's flip-flopping on investigating Bush administration officials who allegedly sanctioned torture-based interrogations is subject to multiple interpretations. They include,

* The President is playing to his far left base that's hungry for vengeance on Bush for stealing the White House in 2000. Or,

* He's just thinking out-loud as he digests information from advisors, daily. Or,

* These are his Presidential salad days when, green in judgment, he's a bit confused. Or,

* He didn't appreciate the Pandora's Box he was opening when he approved the release of the CIA memos. Or,

* He's mining international P.R. gold by running a campaign against his predecessor who was disliked by professional diplomats from the U.N. and elsewhere. Or,

* Releasing the memos aims to keep congressional Republicans on the defensive as Obama advances his legislative agenda. Or,

* He's running conflicting positions up two adjacent flag poles to see which gets the most salutes. Or,

* He's expressing his commitment to transparent government (Robert Gibbs' explanation on Face the Nation, April 26). Or,

* He's being controlled by the sentiments of congressional Democrats and, since he needs their support to fund his programs, he's trying to satisfy their hunger for revenge against Republicans.


Or, some combination of two or more of the above, plus unnamed others.

There's another explanation of the sting underway that advances Krauthammer's article. It's this: We're witnessing the political version of the good cop bad cop scam. That explains why trying to make sense of Obama's flip-flopping based on its face is an exercise in futility.

The bad cop is the accuser, the aggressor, the mean one -- nearly out of control. The good cop is open-minded, understanding, sympathetic -- a counter force for good. In the end, the good cop controls the suspect and breaks the case.

Think back. The Obama administration began with Nancy Pelosi playing the bad cop. When the omnibus appropriations for fiscal years 2009 was stuffed full of earmarks, it was the fault of the House of Representatives. The good cop, Obama, was powerless to do anything about (sure, except veto it).

With regard to the CIA memos, the bad cops are at it again. This time it's Representative John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy leading the charge for hearings and investigations. The President is the good cop, feigning reluctance at being bad.

First, he leans toward going along with the bad cops. Then he makes noises like a good cop, but then shifts decision-making responsibility to the D.A. (played by Attorney General Eric Holder). Next, he says there's not much he can do except go along with the bad cops. The law's on their side, after all. It's hard to keep up! Meanwhile, the suspect twists in the wind.

In the soft interrogation style of law enforcement, the good cop bad cop goal is information or confession. So what's its purpose here?

Remember when the old media began counting the days U.S. Embassy personnel were being held hostage by "students" in Iran? Day One was November 5, 1979. For several weeks before that day, the nightly news had highlighted the plight of Cambodians fleeing from the killing fields of Pol Pot. By the tens of thousands, they huddled in huge refugee camps just across the border inside Thailand.

On November 5, the Cambodian refugees disappeared from the news cycle, never to resurface. They went from lead story, to no story, presto.

The CIA memos, soon to be accompanied by photos (swell), are sucking the oxygen out of the daily news cycle. Meanwhile, the MSM, which still steers public political attention, is ignoring critical legislative actions underway.

When we no longer need to focus on alleged CIA torture, the issue will disappear like the Cambodians. Here's how that could happen.

When opposition to pursuing prosecution reaches a tipping point, more "moderate" Congressional Democrats will go on the record against a prolonged witch hunt. They'll package it as being in the nation's best interests.

Soon thereafter, Obama will declare, with passion and finality this time, that the government must get on with doing the nation's business in these difficult economic times. Case closed. (When Nixon was pardoned a similar explanation hurt President Ford, but Obama will be the hero in an opera his administration choreographed.)

For a day or two, the bad cops will huff-and-puff, for appearances sake. The old media will proclaim Obama to be the Uniter, just as they packaged him during the campaign.

Meanwhile, as the dust is still settling, Congress will pass some sweeping legislation that advances Obama's agenda.

The Fifth Sting is the good cop bad cop scam that President Obama and the Democrat- controlled Congress are running. And, it's working. ...

Bloggers comment. I realized that what the above writer says is fact and much of this same type of bait and switch also worked during Obamas election campaign so why not use it again?

I believe the potential pandemic involving Mexico is along the same lines. It is a fact that probably 2 million Mexican's have returned to their homeland due to the work shortage here in the United States. I also believe that although this new flu is a serious problem and may get worse the same type of bait and switch is taking place and it has been approved by both U.S. Presidency and the Presidency of Mexico.

Here's how it works. With the return of 2 million paisan's to Mexico and more coming plus the loss of billions of U.S.dollars arriving in Mexico daily from landed workers states the government is in a quagmire.

The Mexican government most definitely is not going to spend any money on developing a welfare system that really works in its time of need.(Why should they when American States do it for them) and they are not suddenly going to go on a building boom to give all of these returning workers jobs at home. (That would be dipping into the pockets of the autocratic elite.)

So how to stop the flow?
Build a fence? No that would be too obvious. Put more soldiers on the border? No that would create problems for the Narco traffickers who the government already subsidizes. So what to do?

Hey how about telling them there is a mean dog behind that fence so don't go in that yard? Yeah that will work. In the meantime we can also proof test more of our already sketchy Tamaflu vaccine which was developed for the bird flu. It was never really dispensed enough to get any real real feedback because of the weaker mutated strains of flu dieing with the birds and not transmitting to humans in any real numbers. Maybe St. Jude will help

Did you know that this new strain of flu appears as a mutated virus not only from a pig mutated cells but also from bird cells? (bet that one didn't get much news play). It then combines with human DNA or RNA.

Hey if you were a Mexican stuck in the U.S. with no work, no welfare, and no gas for your pickup, you might consider returning home to your family to live off of for awhile no? After all you sent a lot of money their way when times were better right?

But hey if I get sick down there in my home pueblo I can't get treated as good as I do here sooo, maybe we need to stay awhile longer and go down for Christmas or after.


Just think by next year Obama wants to send out the census workersObamas Census Bureau Cabinet member and begin to push legislation for the assimilation of potentially 20-30 million (real figures) of future nationalized citizens ( the new U.S. Chamber of Commerce work force)Chamber backs immigrant reform.

And besides with a really scary thing like the flu (you remember how freaked out the populous got with SARS and the Bird epidemic, we can keep the people from paying much attention to our budget, welfare, and amnesty bills getting ready to be submitted to our one sided government.

No one but us (I hate to use this phrase) old timers remember much about the 50's Asian flu epidemic.Rumor has it that it was released on the population of New York to see how it would spread during the beginning years of the cold war, and then dumped systematically on both China and Russia over the next two decades.

Hmmm history repeating itself?Pandemic Flus

Napolitano: Race Pandering Instead of Closing Border to Swine Flu

Posted by John Paul Mitchell in Arizona, Arizona Border, Federal Government, General, Politics. Tagged: troops, Border, Janet Napolitano, Mexico, United States, Americans, Napolitano, Obama administration, emergency, Soldiers, health, CDC, WHO, Swine Flu, Medicine, Flu, Sick, Center for Disease Control, Spanish Flu. No Comments

Wonder why the Obama admnistration declared the swine flu epidemic an emergency after only one case had been reported in the U.S.? A few days ago, the Center for Disease Control declared the swine flu epidemic a “public health emergency” comparable to the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1917/18 that killed close to 5% of the population worldwide. It’s because if the government declared it a lesser threat in the U.S., we’d have to proactively take more steps to protect ourselves, like close the border to Mexico completely and put armed troops there. Napolitano and the Obama administration care more about looking politically correct on race than protecting the country from a security threat.

Mexico is reporting 1,995 cases of swine flu and 152 deaths. In contrast, the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. is only at 52, with no deaths. Virtually ever case so far can be traced to Mexico. Most likely, there are many more cases in Mexico that we are unaware of. Their death rate is 11.5% of those affected based on the numbers we have. This is frightening. It is appalling that Napolitano and the Obama administration are not shutting down the border.

We’re hearing nothing from the Mexico government about preventing the spread of swine flu. Europe has issued a travel advisory warning Europeans not to travel to Mexico OR THE U.S. The Europeans realize what’s happening with our politically correct policy - soon we’re going to be in the same boat as Mexico as the flu crosses the border into the U.S., bringing us to epidemic levels too.

How much is the Obama administration’s politically correct response to this epidemic costing the U.S. in tourist dollars? Apparently they’d rather have Mexicans possibly infected with swine flu illegally sneak across the border rather than legitimate business travelers from countries not affected by the outbreak.

According to yesterday’s Yellow Sheet, Napolitano dismissed closing the border -

She says identifying and isolating those who seem ill as they try to cross was an adequate strategy given the circumstances.

“We’re already doing passive surveillance at the border,” Napolitano said. “You would close the border if you thought you could contain the spread of disease, but the disease is already in a number of U.S. states.”

Those infected with swine flu might not show symptoms for a few days, prompting Napolitano to say border closure is “a very difficult judgment to make.”

The CDC said the only action it would begin taking at the border would be “passive” -

The acting head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that American authorities were starting to undertake “passive screening” at its borders. Richard Besser declared anew the Obama administration’s call for people to stay calm and take precautions, and he said border officials would start “asking people about fever and illness, looking for people who are ill.”

At this time, the United States is not conducting enhanced entry screening of passengers arriving from Mexico, nor is the United States conducting exit screening of passengers departing for Mexico.

If this was taking place under the Bush administration, you’d be hearing cries of another mishandled Katrina.

We’re hoping that Congress gets some sense and closes the border. A few members of Congress need to take the lead, stand up and demand that the border be closed. The number of those affected keeps increasing every day, and contrary to Napolitano’s politically correct statements, it’s not too late to contain it within Mexico. We don’t need another one of Napolitano’s gaffes to cost thousands of Americans their lives.

(Source: Sonoran All

Troubling future for bipartisanship

If there was ever any hope of actually gaining some bipartisanship in Congress the comments below indicate that it is all lost if the Obama administration goes through as planned with an investigation into the Bush years of prisoner interrogations.

This in turn will create enormous problems for Obama in his efforts to gain any type of meaningful success in Afghanistan and his planned troop departure from Iraq.

The handwriting is on the wall, and it says Obama may be setting the United States up for the what could turn into a long and protracted World War III, as a result of his efforts to reverse the momentum gained in the past seven years.

Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA


By: Jim Meyers cross posted from NewsMax
Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security.

The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.

Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.

“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.

See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now

“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.

“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.

“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.

“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.

“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.

“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.

“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.

“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”

Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.

“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.

“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.

“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.

“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.

“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.

“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.

“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”

Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.

“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.

“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”

Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.

“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”

Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m.

Why the Law is Foreign to Ginsberg

cross posted from American Thinker
By Selwyn Duke
There is an old saying, "A man who is capable of deceiving only others is not nearly as dangerous as a man who is capable of deceiving himself." Truer words were never spoken. When a person lies, he is deceiving others about reality, but at least knows he is engaging in deception. But when someone rationalizes -- which is when you lie to yourself -- he is truly lost. He then not only bends reality for others as a by-product of bending it for himself, but he can render untruths without having to lie. This is because a lie is when he tells an untruth knowing it's untrue. It's much like when the ever-prevaricating George Costanza character on Seinfeld gave his advice for beating a polygraph machine, "just remember . . . it's not a lie if you believe it."

I think of this when I hear Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg tout the use of foreign law by American judges sworn to uphold the Constitution -- that would be our constitution. Speaking about this recently at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, she said,

"I frankly don't understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law [when handing down court rulings] . . . ."


Well, you know what? I believe her. She and her fellow travelers really don't understand. That is, they don't grasp the correct legal philosophy well enough to understand what they're rejecting.

Note that I called the legal philosophy "correct" and not "strict constructionism," and for good reason. When you call it correct, it follows that other positions are incorrect. But what is the other side of the coin of constructionism? It would be living-document legal philosophies. To accept these categorizations implies that we just have a bunch of different credible perspectives on constitutional law, and who is to say what is correct? Call it, legal relativism. But more on this in a moment.

At her speech at Moritz College, Ginsberg served notice that -- like so many in legal circles today -- she is in fact very confused about her role on the bench. As an example of this, Adam Liptak at The New York Times tells us,

"She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.

The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is ‘probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.' There is one reason for that, she said: ‘You will not be listened to if you don't listen to others.'"

This is a striking statement, and it vindicates something I've long believed. I once wrote that part of the problem with our judges is that they're not content to just be judges. A judge is much like a referee at a baseball game. It's not his place to make or alter the rulebook (Constitution); his is simply to determine whether or not it has been violated. His like or dislike of a rule shouldn't come into play.

Yet today we have judges who would be kings. They're not satisfied to just referee; that's too small a role for them. They want to be agents of activism, molders of men, shapers of society -- and they want the ego satisfaction attending such status. They want to be respected by their peers around the world, fellow members of the global judicial class. This is evidenced in Ginsberg's statements. Why should she care if the Canadian Supreme Court is cited more than ours? Popularity doesn't equate to perspicacity. After all, rap stars are far more popular than the most sublime moral philosophers. And, as far whether or not foreigners listen to her court goes, here's a newsflash: It matters not to normal Americans whether they do or not. They're not governed by American law; thus, our judges' rulings may be irrelevant to them. And foreign rulings should certainly be irrelevant to our judges.

Thus, it seems that these things matter to Ginsberg because she isn't satisfied with her role (a common failing of man). She wants prestige and respect; she wants to set trends. Perhaps she should have started a cult. I hear there's some land available in northwestern Guyana.

Yet living-document justices are comforted in their misfeasance by rationalizations they conjure up to justify it. One that Ginsberg has used is to criticize the view that the Constitution is "stuck in time." But she has it wrong. It is not stuck in time but stuck in law. Law can be changed through legal measures -- in the case of the Constitution, the amendment process -- but until then it's supposed to be "stuck." The alternative to being stuck in law is being subject to the caprice of those with greater power. That would mean that you could appear before a judge and he could rule based on whim or that a policeman could arrest you because he believed he had just experienced an epiphany about what the law should be. In other words, this thinking is no different from the rule of kings, where a Herod could deliver John the Baptist's head on a plate to please his wife. It is why G.K. Chesterton said, "There are only two ways of governing: by a rule and by a ruler." It is why we should have "the rule of law" and not the rule of lawyers.

And this is why some of us have likened our Supreme Court to a de facto oligarchy. After all, on what basis does an oligarchy rule? Its members decide guided by nothing more than the dictates of their own consciences. So people can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want. They can wrap their living-document legal philosophy in a million pseudo-intellectual arguments. But, at the end of the day, it boils down to might makes right. When justices depart from constitutional constraints, they cannot be voted out of office or fired. The only thing constraining them then is their own consciences and the regard of their overseas peers -- just as with an oligarchy

This is why I would have far more respect for someone who overtly defies the law (think Martin Luther King and civil disobedience) and simply refuses to comply. For he is deceiving neither himself nor others. He is simply saying that the law is wrong, that it violates a higher law and that it's the duty of all good people to defy it. It is the difference between an open declaration of war and the use of subterfuge and subversion.

This brings us to a question. If Supreme Court Justices can rule contrary to the letter and spirit of the supreme law of the land on the basis that the Constitution is not "stuck in time," why can lower courts not apply the same reasoning to what is called "settled law" (areas where the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution "definitively")? After all, how can law ever be "settled" if it can never be viewed as "stuck"? Why can a lower court not say, "Well, sure, the Supreme Court ruled that way five years ago, but times are a-changin' fast. The law has a different meaning today"? If the Black Robes won't be constrained by the Constitution, why should others be constrained by their unconstitutional precedents?

We now come to the supreme arrogance of our oligarchs-cum-jurists. For their living-law philosophy isn't for all, is it? It's not for the citizen; for him law is stuck in time. It's not for the cop on the beat; interpretation isn't his luxury. It's not for the lower-court judge; for him precedent is to be pre-eminent. It's not even for the president, for the laws he signs are subject to Supreme Court judgments. And judgments based on what? Not the Constitution, obviously. It is again merely their own judgment.

This raises the question of why we should respect the rulings of usurpers. If they will not view the Constitution as being stuck in law, why should we view the law as being stuck in courts? Are the dictates of black-robed oligarchs to be viewed as the only immutable elements in an ever-changing universe of laws? Oh, ignoring court rulings would lead to a breakdown in the rule of law and this isn't a good thing?

Exactly.

The point is that activist judges undermine the rule of law by setting an example of contempt for it. Others are then placed in the position of asking what adherence to the rule of law really means. Should they defer to court judgments made by those who don't view themselves as constrained by law? Or, should they rather use their own judgment -- as the justices are doing -- as to the real meaning of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution?

This is what living-document legal rationalizations breed. And it is why I've often said that all our designations for jurists, such as "constructionist" and "pragmatist," are nonsense. Because, really, there are only two kinds of justices: Good justices and bad justices. Good ones do their job and abide by the Constitution. Bad ones lawyer the law.

Hey, maybe Ginsberg and her fellow travelers should just be honest and boil this down to its bare essence. They could quote infamous occultist Aleister Crowley and say, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Insuring Racial Discrimination

President Obama made a good first impression late last year when he declined to select hard leftists for key positions such as secretary of defense and national-security adviser.

Even Eric H. Holder Jr., Mr. Obama's choice for attorney general, did not have a reputation as an ideologue, though his involvement in President Clinton's presidential pardons raised other concerns.

Conservatives warned, however, that the real test would occur when the administration filled the top jobs just below the Cabinet level, where key policy decisions typically are made. As feared, the Obama administration has populated key sub-Cabinet positions with left-wing ideologues.

Consider Mr. Holder's Justice Department. The radicalism of Dawn E. Johnsen, the nominee to head the vital Office of Legal Counsel, has been well-documented and may result in a filibuster. Ms. Johnsen once compared the curtailment of a woman's ability to obtain an abortion to slavery. She also has been at the forefront of the movement to limit the president's ability to wage war on terrorism.

Thomas Saenz, Mr. Obama's initial choice to head the Justice Department's Office of Civil Rights, made his name trying to limit the government's ability to enforce laws against illegal immigration. Perhaps fearing a backlash, the White House shied away from Mr. Saenz and instead nominated Thomas E. Perez.

Mr. Perez also has been an advocate for illegal immigrants. However, he is best-known for his efforts to develop cutting-edge theories with which to defend discrimination in favor of blacks and other minority groups.

In a 2006 article in the University of Maryland's Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, Mr. Perez argued for the preferential treatment of minority applicants for medical school admission on the theory that minority medical school graduates are significantly more likely than their white counterparts to provide care to the poor.

In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court already had upheld racial preferences in university admissions because they advance a supposedly compelling interest in producing a diverse student body. Mr. Perez concocted his alternative argument to provide what he called an "insurance policy" in case the Supreme Court overturns the "diversity" rationale now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has retired. He also called for an examination of whether the use of race-based preferences by other professional schools could be supported as necessary to ensure that poor people are served.

Mr. Perez's article is an effective piece of advocacy, full of evidence that minority medical graduates do, indeed, serve the poor in disproportionately high numbers. However, Mr. Perez's analysis is not intellectually honest because it fails to acknowledge that those admitted through racial preferences also are disproportionately likely to do poorly in medical school and, thereafter, disproportionately less likely to obtain important board certifications. In other words, lowering admission standards for minority applicants reduces the number of well-qualified doctors.

This result is hardly surprising. The normal medical school admissions process has been crafted, after years of experience, to identify the candidates most likely to succeed in medical school and the profession. Overriding that process to favor one group entails intentionally selecting individuals with worse prospects for such success than some of those who are rejected. This is true whether the favored group consists of whites or non-Jews, as it did in the distant past, or blacks and Hispanics, as it does today.

Given the professional shortcomings of many affirmative-action admittees, their tendency to serve poor patients means that such patients tend to be treated by underqualified doctors. As commentator Linda Chavez puts it, this amounts to a form of "medical apartheid."

Proponents of race-based preferences might counter that being served by underqualified doctors is better than not being served at all. But this assumes that skin color, rather than a lack of options because of weak credentials, explains why the beneficiaries of racial preferences find themselves serving the poor. Mr. Perez offers no meaningful data to support such an assumption.

Accordingly, Mr. Perez is in no position to deny that, in a purely merit-based admissions system, those at the bottom of their class will serve the poor to roughly the same extent they do under a racial quota system. The only difference (other than skin color) would be that, in a merit-based system, this cohort will consist of better doctors.

Moreover, even if Mr. Perez were correct in assuming that, everything else being equal, minority doctors will gravitate toward poor patients, he ignores the option of combining colorblind admissions with a system of incentives for doctors to serve the poor.

Such a system would promote equal access to medical providers while maximizing the quality of the treatment provided to low-income patients. Even more important, it also would accomplish this without subjecting medical school applicants to racial discrimination.

Napolitano must go!

Since 1929 the act of entering the United States without proper documentation, has been a crime.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

* Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
* Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
* Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

If Janet Napolitano feels that because the problem of illegal entry has been going on so long it is no longer a crime, she is sadly mistaken. If what she implies(per se) is true that would mean any and all misdemeanors could and should be treated the same way.

For instance speeding is a misdemeanor that can bare the same penalties as illegal entry into the United States, when on state or federal land, or better yet entry into a National Park when it has been closed or is posted for the season.

Both could be considered victimless crimes.When looked upon in this light I have to question just whose side is Napolitano on anyway? Clearly such an irresponsible statement sends the wrong signal to all law abiding citizens of both countries involved in this dilemma.

In most all cases of illegal entry not only is Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code violated but additional charges can and do pile up.

There is the act of conspiracy, committed between the "coyote traffic'r" and the illegal entrant.

In many instances there is the act of trespass, upon private, state, or federal land, ie National Park Land, or Government Military Installation.

There is the act of reckless endangerment when an illegal attempts to bring minor children into the country as well.

And there can be the act of smuggling, which may entail the persons one brings with them, or contraband of undeclared goods, (in most cases this would not apply to the majority of poor illegals coming across.)

There are also acts against the ever so precious environment results of which has been broadcast on cable television expo se's such as Discovery or TLC. Why are the "tree huggers" not aligning with the "Minute Men" on this issue?

Of course one might say that these poor people coming into the country are ignorant to our laws and therefore cannot be held accountable. To this I say B.S. and as our legal system stipulates "ignorance is no excuse of the law." It is obvious of their awareness by their stealth in entry that they are knowledgeable about their violation of some U.S. legal requirement.

Once these folks get here they feel the urge to demand equal rights comparable to those of our very own citizens so why must we continue to practice a duel standard with them upon their initial illegal entry?

It is my guess that "La Prensa" will be all over this story by today, or at least by mańana.
Another related article below.

Napolitano taking heat.

Barney Frank Guilty !He cannot deny this video.

How True It Is!! Here Here

Having fallen away from Christianity (at least the celebration of it)but still holding a deep respect for those who devoutly believe in their faith, I agree with this authors opinion. It takes courage to stand for what one believes in, no matter it be your faith, patriotism, or moral conviction.

Cross posted from American Thinker

Carrie Prejean's Koufax Moment
By Bruce Walker
Carrie Prejean, Miss California and the runner up in the Miss USA Pageant, was asked a question about her view of marriage. She recited what her faith believed -- marriage is between a man and a woman -- and as a consequence she may have lost the title of Miss USA. What Ms. Prejean had was a Koufax Moment or, perhaps, a Myerson Moment.

Sandy Koufax was one of the greatest baseball pitchers of all time. His persona was nice, serious, and mild. Baseball was his game, and he did not go around preaching to other people. Koufax was also Jewish. In 1965, Sandy Koufax led the Dodgers to the World Series. The first game of the series was on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year. Any major league baseball pitcher would have loved to be the first pitcher for his team in the World Series, and that certainly included Sandy Koufax. But if that meant violating the greater spiritual fidelity which Koufax felt as a Jew, then he would not play. He did what he, not public opinion, thought was right.

When Bess Myerson competed in the Miss America Pageant, the easy thing to do would have been to conceal her Jewishness. Why not change "Myerson" to something less ... provocative? She, of course, did not. Like Prejean, Myerson faced hatred because of her faith, but today all but the narrowest of minds and tiniest of hearts see that not running from her Jewishness was courageous and good. Then, perhaps a less bigoted era, Bess Myerson earned and won the title of Miss America.

When Carrie Prejean answered honestly the question put to her, she had her Koufax Moment. When she refused to renounce her faith to please the mob, she had her Myerson Moment. Carrie no more wanted to be asked about her concept of marriage than Sandy wanted the first game of the World Series to fall on Yom Kippur. She was simply forced to choose between what she thought was right and what the Hollywood crowd wanted her to say.

Some people may have thought Koufax wrong for placing faith about his team or above the game of baseball. Some people may have thought Myerson foolish for not adapting a less obviously Jewish name. Some people may have though Prejean wrong for placing faith about the Miss USA Pageant or the sensibilities of gay couples. If Koufax and Myerson offended us for living lives as Jews, and if Prejean offends us for living life as a Christian, then we are in thrall to a sickening evil.

Sandy Koufax, Bess Myerson, and Carrie Prejean did not choose to fight religious wars. All they asked was to be able to compete in the mainstream of American life without having nasty haters mutilate their opportunities. They asked simply to be faithful to their faith. Should major league baseball have punished Sandy Koufax for spoiling the World Series? Should Bess Myerson have been denied the Miss America Crown because she was Jewish? Surely forcing Koufax or Myerson to sell their Jewishness at the price of competing fairly in America would have been wrong. Just as surely, asking Prejean to sell her Christianity (or instructing Prejean that her version of Christianity was improper) as the price of competing fairly in America is just as wrong.

Eric Liddell, one of the two remarkable runners portrayed in the magnificent film, Chariots of Fire, would not run in an Olympic event that was held on Sunday, this devout Christian's Sabbath. Liddell, like Koufax, was prepared to sacrifice something that he had worked his whole life to reach for something he held greater than any prize that man could give. Liddell, like Prejean, would not twist his Christianity into something that pleased the crowd.

If we are wise, then we will see that Eric Liddell was right to follow his conscience. If we are good, then we will grasp that Bess Myerson was honorable in honoring her people. If we seek tolerance, then we will bless Sandy Koufax for placing his faith above his fame. And if we care about a future of peace, justice, and love, then we will applaud Carrie Prejean for saying what she thought was right, whatever the cost.

Beyond that, we must say that the haters of old are the haters of now. The bigots who disparaged Myerson are the bigots who mock Prejean. The narrow minds and narrower hearts who cannot endure different beliefs to speak an honest opinion are the true enemies of real tolerance.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and his recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

Excellent Article from American Thinker.

American Imperialism, Obama Style
By James Lewis
The thing about imperialism is that it never looks like imperialism to the well-intentioned imperialists themselves. Most Soviet Russians were convinced they were just spreading peace and love to Eastern Europe and China, even with all their massed artillery and tanks. They knew in their hearts that the KGB State was just a temporary thing, until all the subject peoples could be educated enough to bring true Communism to earth.

They had that belief in common with the Roman legions, who conquered the world around the Mediterranean, and with Victorian missionaries in the Africa and India, who were also convinced they were just spreading civilization to the backward peoples of the earth.

It's always that way.

The funny thing about Barack Obama's victory lap to his buds in Trinidad and Tobago is that they are all under the sway of one Karl Marx, who just happened to be a classical European Imperialist. Real Marxists don't make any bones about it. Nor did the Soviets.

(And Karl Marx was a raging racist to boot).

The breakdown of the USSR and Maoist China after 1989 turned out to be a stroke of luck for Western Marxists. It allowed them to dissociate themselves from visibly bloody Communist Imperialism. Traveling from West to East Berlin, and seeing Western luxury turn into Stalinist poverty was just a little bit too much. After Gorbachev and Reagan they could pretend they were never on the side of evil.

What we are seeing today with Barack Obama is a triumph of Leftist Faith over the brute facts of history. The Left has managed to swallow its own bloody past in a capacious Black Hole. Instead, college kids are brought up today on Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a totally one-sided tale of all the bad things done in America in the last four hundred years. Zinn's very title tells us that traditional American history was never about the real people. When our airhead Hollywood celebrities slam the United States, it's because they've been brought up on reams and reams of such self-hating stuff. They think they know the truth, when in fact their brains are just on the rinse and spin cycle.

True Leftists collect other people's injustices, one after the other, and rehearse them in their minds for years. That's how they define themselves mentally as The Good People and those who disagree with them as The Evil Ones. That's why they are so ready to demonize those who disagree. Like Barack and Michelle, they are utterly convinced of their own righteousness. But they end up pushing Marxist Imperialism.

So... Barack Obama is turning out to be a Socialist Imperialist -- all for highly moral reasons, needless to say. Those loving encounters with Chavez and Ortega mean that they are now alike in spirit. Listening to their standard rantings is not news for BO, because he can recite their story from memory.

Which means that they are all the indoctrinated victims of an amazingly angry, white German ideologue of the early 19th century, whose idea of the perfect society was a world-conquering Bismarckian Reich, where everything was dictated top-down by the self-appointed Ruling Class.

(Note: The word "Reich" = "Empire," as in "Imperialism." Bismarck didn't care who knew it.)

And now the world is told that the election of a black man in America is a great victory for Progress -- which always means Marxist progress by those who use that word. That's what Obama keeps telling the whole world, time and time again. Look at me, world! I'm Progress!

Imperialism anybody?

Guess what all the post-colonial regimes did in the Third World when the European colonists finally went back home? Post-colonial rulers were mostly Marxists of one kind or another, because they went to elite schools in London, Paris and Moscow where Europe's Ruling Class receives its basic indoctrination.

So they tried Marxism back home.

Jawaharlal Nehru tried to impose British Fabian Imperialism on India, with disastrous results. Kwame Nkrumah tried it with Ghana, Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya. In the Arab world, Gamal Abdel Nasser tried to impose secular Arab Nationalism with a socialist bent on Egypt, Syria and Libya. Robert Mugabe is still practicing post-colonial socialism in the former Zimbabwe, now locked in miserable regime-imposed racial scapegoating, poverty, and famine.

But all the post-colonial tyrants were beyond criticism by the Left, because they were black or brown, or just tanned. Even today the Left can't bring itself to denounce Mugabe and the Sudanese genociders, no matter what they do. That's why 100 nations in Durban this week denounced Israel for being racists. Africans, Arabs, Chinese, Indians can't be racists even if they are. That's why Obama can't even bring himself to denounce black slavery in Africa and the Middle East. Just the opposite. King Abdullah the desert camel raider received a deep and respectful bow from our President, an absolute first in American history.

So all over the world, post-colonial rulers took the European Imperialism of Marx and tried to slap it on top of the underdeveloped world. Pol Pot was trained in France by the French Communist Party, and decided to be really revolutionary back in Cambodia by killing a couple of million ordinary folk, especially the dangerous intellectuals -- those who wore glasses. Mao Zedong learned his craft in Moscow, the old Imperial capital of the Czars.

(Note: Czar = Emperor, as in Kaiser and Caesar. Imperialism.).

The star students of Europe's elite institutions spread their neo-Imperialist faith to the Third World. But none of it worked, except to keep the post-colonial tyrannies in luxury and power. That is why radical Islam has made a comeback -- because post-colonial socialism broke down. Islamist rage is a reaction to the secular Marxist Imperialism preached by post-colonial governments. But guess what? Radical Islam is just Imperialism under another color. The flags change, the slogans change, Imperialism doesn't.

Today's United Nations marches under the banner of Saving Planet Earth, a Green slogan pioneered in ... lily-white Europe. The global warming fraud is a classic imperialist propaganda campaign, designed to empower Green Imperialism. It's hardly a secret. Ask Maurice Strong and Gyorgyi Soros.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, some of the underdeveloped regions discovered their own free market dynamism -- since trade and individual initiative are pretty universal human traits. Eastern Europe, parts of China, and some Latin American and African countries began to rise from poverty. They discovered their own strengths.

And then the Marxist Imperialists regrouped and took one-party power again -- in Venezuela, in Nicaragua, maybe in Brazil.

Those are Barack Obama's good buds, because Obama is basically a post-colonial racial socialist. That's why Dreams from My Father celebrates his Kenyan Socialist dad, and not his white Kansas mother. President O is a Socialist Imperialist by ideology, but one who never quite grokked why Jomo Kenyatta's Socialism just brought misery to Kenya.

But we're not supposed to call their ideology Socialist Imperialism. According to Lenin, Socialists can't be Imperialists. On the Left, Lenin's opinion on that issue is considered to be final.

So ... the President of the United States is on an anti-Imperialist apology tour to Europe, Trinidad and Tobago, and soon, the Middle East. But since deep down he's a Marxist Imperialist, this is really an anti-Imperialist US Imperialist tour.

Got that?

The question is which countries have grown enough political wisdom to see through the layers and layers of bull. If they get suckered by the latest (racialist) version of Marxism, it will come back to haunt them. Ideology doesn't feed children, as even the Fidelistas now know. It ends up squeezing people dry.

Ultimately, decent government requires an involved and thinking population. That is, if we believe Lincoln's words that you can't fool all the people all of the time.

Come to think of it, that's the real question for American voters, too.

I wonder when they'll stop being fooled?

Pirates want in on Obama's rescue plan

"A region of Somalia that is home to many of the pirates who have made national news terrorizing area waters is seeking help from K Street to calm the troubled seas," The Hill reports. "The Puntland State of Somalia, an autonomous region in northeastern Somalia formed in 1998, has hired a lobbying firm in Washington, hoping to make the case that lawmakers on Capitol Hill should send money their way to combat piracy and reduce terrorism in the chaotic Gulf of Aden region."

March's Prediction coming true. bye bye Times

On March 9th I made a modest prediction that the NYT would be extinct before the end of this most recent deepening recession.
Usually I hate it when I am right but in this case I couldn't be more joyful.
The only salvation now is for the likes of Carlos Slim to buy out the entire enterprise when the government plan fails.byebyenyt


New York Times Company Posts Monumental Losses
By Stephen Gutowski (Bio | Archive)
April 22, 2009 - 16:56 ET


The New York Times Company is burning full blast towards oblivion and if they don't figure out a way to pull out of their death spiral soon it won't be pretty. In fact, in the first quarter of 2009 the Times lost an incredible $74.5 million which was far far beyond what analysts had predicted. Here's how the Times describes it's own deterioration:

The New York Times Company reported a first-quarter loss of $74.5 million on Tuesday, compared with a loss of $335,000 in the period a year ago, as it joined the roster of newspaper companies recording the steepest advertising declines in generations.

Advertising revenue at the company’s publishing segment fell 28.4 percent in the quarter, including an 8 percent decline in Internet advertising at the News Media Group.

[...]

The Times Company’s total revenue of $609 million, down 18.6 percent from $747.9 million in the first quarter a year ago, fell more than $20 million short of analysts’ projections.

Of course this abysmal performance is already being spun by the Times itself and the Associated Press as nothing more than a result of a shift in marketing and the poor economy:

Wow they're not all dumb blondes in California!!

Carrie Prejean has class... and Perez Hilton??. In defense of Ms. Prejean I had considered stooping really low in the gutter and calling Mr/Ms Hilton something very visceral and mean,something he deserves to be called. But after watching the video several more times and being passionately impressed with the class of Ms. California, who because of her personal views and those of 56% of the rest of her state lost the Miss U.S.A. contest to Ms. North Carolina. I decided to follow suit with her and just mention that I think people like Hilton should be left out of the consideration when it comes to picking judges for such a contest.

Carrie Prejean only got runner up but something tells me she is going to go a long way for her public statement on how she feels about gay marriage. If tomorrow comes and Donald Trump doesn't offer her a big piece of apple pie, then (I will call him one) is a chump.

I know that Donald Trump is one of those people who respects those who stand up for their convictions and I cannot see him letting this precious opportunity slip away for reinforcing what he believes in. No silly not the issue about gay marriage but the issue of having a bright well informed beautiful young woman who actually has a real opinion and stood up for it to her immediate loss and denigration by the worst of all judges Perez Hilton.

So come on Donald toss her a bone, and rub salt in the wounds of that little ... ......, who just took away a young girls dream because he disagreed with her moral, religious, and traditional views. Clearly Ms Prejean did not stumble when her feet were put to the fire and clearly this intimidated Hilton. So as the ... that he is spineless and weak he used the only Trump (pardon the pun) card he had and took his revenge on her right to free speech because he disagrees.

So come on Donald, Icon of Icon's, self indulging egotist, but very successful entrepreneur. Show the world what you are made of. If you can forgive a girl for indiscretions and give her another chance then you can most certainly reward a true blooded American beauty queen for being a traditionalist and bright.. Lets see what Donald is really made of.

Your not my favorite guy but who cares I respect you for your success and your large scrotum which houses some steel bolas. Lets see you do your magic and give this girl not the brass ring but a golden one of opportunity. And thank you for presenting such a wonderfully real (as opposed to many plastic) and gorgeous young woman to America, it does us good to know they are out there.

And oh yeah! To bad the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy's are done, I just noticed from the video that Perez Hilton would make a wonderful little hobbit!

This is Great Stuff, Two Opposing Views! What say You??

Why Meghan McCain Is Right

Posted By Jazz Shaw On April 21, 2009
Meghan McCain, whose father apparently ran for some political office at one time, certainly knows how to attract attention. Unfortunately, at least among doctrinaire Republicans, it’s generally of the wrong sort.

Her most recent outing was [1] a speech delivered to the Log Cabin Republicans’ 2009 convention. In an occasionally rambling but hopeful address, Ms. McCain drew fire from the punditry for daring to give voice to an ugly truth which many party loyalists would rather not contemplate: if the ideological purists of the GOP — particularly the social conservatives — wish to thin the herd by driving all the RINOs from their midst, they are dooming the Republicans to a future as a regional party with little hope for electoral success on a national level.

She may be young and lacking a deep well of life experience from which to draw, but kids still do say the darnedest things. “What I am talking about tonight is what it means to be a new, progressive Republican. Now some will say I can’t do that. If you aren’t this and that, then you’re clearly a ‘Republican in Name Only,’ also affectionately known as a RINO.”

The rest of the speech makes it clear what she means by being “this and that.” To be fair to Meghan’s critics, her speech did indeed lend itself to some of the hyperbolic stereotypes of conservatives which portray them as rich, out of touch, angry, old, homophobic, racist white men who adore pollution and incinerate puppies in backyard burn barrels. But stereotypes only tend to find traction in our society if there is a flickering ember beneath all the smoke, and fire breathers willing to fan the flames.

For a brief glimpse at the reactions of the base to such a RINO, we need look no further than the nearly 700 comments left at [2] a Hot Air post on Ms. McCain’s speech. Calls for party purity in the name of “true conservatism,” mixed with a cavalcade of insults and frankly offensive derision, drown out any reasoned discussion as to whether or not the young lady might have had a point.

Among the various stereotypes referenced above, Meghan drew the ire of many readers for one fairly innocuous sentence.: “I care about the environment.” This is an area where conservatism’s loudest cheerleaders have consistently managed to shoot the Republican Party in the foot and cede a great deal of real estate to the Democrats for no good reason.

It’s perfectly valid to make a rational, scientifically sustainable argument that the lion’s share of climate change may not be directly caused by the actions of man without making a mockery of everything relating to environmental issues. Yet any time a topic arises concerning carbon emissions, pollution, recycling, energy conservation, or green technology, we see our supporting peanut gallery showing up in droves with the same old hackneyed insults. “Enviro-zealots, hippies and tree huggers” are prominently on display in these discussions.

Dumping barge loads of compact florescent bulbs into the ocean is viewed by some “real conservatives” as a better statement than working to improve and clean up the technology. Since when did it become a badge of honor to [3] leave every light in your house burning to no purpose — wasting not only electricity but the owner’s money — rather than taking part in an [4] hour of energy conservation? Ideas like these are not coming from a handful of deranged, partisan nutcases, but from some of the most high-profile, respected voices in the conservative blogosphere. Is it any wonder, then, that stereotypes such as these take hold and wind up being rejected by a younger, more progressive generation of conservatives who are looking to carve out their own place in the Republican Party? Is Meghan McCain really that much of an abomination for pointing out the log in her own party’s eye before plucking the splinter from that of the Democrats?

Returning to our first quote and reaching the more general tone of Ms. McCain’s speech, she somewhat cheerfully called out the party faithful on the label which has come to signify the GOP’s shrinking tent: “Clearly a ‘Republican in Name Only,’ also affectionately known as a RINO.” It’s a fun phrase to toss around, isn’t it? And if you consider yourself to be the heart and soul of what remains of the conservative movement, you probably use it liberally. (Pun intended.)

Speaking as one who lived with that label for years in New York, I can tell you that it’s not really all that amusing. It carries with it the unspoken imprint of one who is neither needed nor wanted. It means that you will grudgingly accept our votes and, perhaps, the odd member of our tribe to bolster your numbers in the legislature, but our opinions will not be found in the platform. We will at best be treated like the mentally deficient uncle who you can’t officially disown but you fervently hope won’t show up in the photo from the family reunion. I can’t help but wonder if the 2008 GOP presidential candidate is feeling a bit of that sensation today.

The Hot Air comments referenced earlier in this column also contained some of the most damning evidence of this phenomenon, and they dealt specifically with John McCain rather than his highly opinionated daughter. He was belittled not only for losing the election, but for being a soft conservative. More than one reader declared that he wasn’t even “a real Republican.” Yes, Senator McCain lost the election, but it was fairly close given the conditions. Too many have forgotten not only the surging popularity of his opponent, but the perfect storm of anti-Republican sentiment brewing in a country facing difficult times under a president with an “R” after his name. Is there anyone left among even the most stalwart GOP base who thinks that a candidate like Sam Brownback could have pulled even 40% last November?

If so, I would submit that you have truly lost sight of the national mood and are allowing purist ideology to stand in the way of progress in the political arena. Rail all you like against Meghan McCain’s youth, her popularity with the liberal media, or her failure to conform to old-world, conservative doctrine. But she’s preaching to a new, younger choir in the evolving landscape of conservatism. You’d be well advised to listen.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com



Why Meghan McCain Is Wrong

Posted By Kim Priestap On April 21, 2009
“I love you. Now, please change.”

That is the message Meghan McCain has for the Republican Party. Ms. McCain said she [1] fell in love with the GOP while campaigning for two years with her father, John McCain. However, in spite of her newly minted affection for the Republican Party, she believes that in order for the party she loves to attract more young people like her, the party needs to be reshaped to reflect the views held by the hip generation of which she imagines that she is a part.

What changes does she think the GOP needs to make? It needs to be hip and edgier. She laments the perception that there are no Republican politicians who are exciting enough that anyone would want to wear his or her likeness on a piece of clothing. What a short memory she has. Her father’s vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, [2] inspired the creation of numerous t-shirts, sweatshirts, and pins with her face on them. She also attracted crowds of tens of thousands at campaign appearances. However, that must be of little consequence to Ms. McCain, since those tens of thousands were the regular folks from the heartland of America who make this country work. They were not the Hollywood types or MTV crowd who [3] wore Barack Obama adorned dresses at mutual admiration societies masquerading as video music award shows.

Ms. McCain also has a dim view of ideological conservatives. She thinks the Republican Party gives too much attention to Ann Coulter, whom she described as “[1] offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing.” Rush Limbaugh is also unacceptable to Meghan, because he is the “extreme right-wing” and “dangerous” for the party — perhaps an unsurprising description in view of Rush’s hesitant and belated endorsement of her father in 2008. So whom does Ms. McCain think Republicans should turn to for political and cultural advice? None other than Russell Brand. A British “comedian,” Brand took time out of his MTV Music Awards hosting duties in September of last year to beg Americans to vote for Barack Obama. He also decided to [4] insult and malign not just Sarah Palin, but her entire family:

I am obliged by broadcasting law to show some balance in this situation, which means, uh, the Republicans might be alright. Sarah Palin. She’s a VILF! A vice president I’d like to…fumble, fondle, I dunno. I do feel a little bit sorry for her daughter, getting pregnant, poor kid. Is it a boy? Is it a girl? It’s a P.R. stunt. Come on. Be honest.

Meghan McCain thinks Rush Limbaugh is dangerous and Ann Coulter is offensive but she thinks Russell Brand is “[5] freaking hilarious” and recommends that “everyone” listen to him. Really? Republicans should embrace the unfunny rants of a man who ridicules and degrades them?

Ms. McCain’s most recent complaint is that the Republican Party is not progressive, particularly when it comes to gay rights. In an [6] April 13 article she said that the GOP uses “anti-gay rhetoric” to “whip up the base” and she used as an example a quote from an unnamed conservative congressman: “If we don’t save marriage, we can’t remain pro-life.” I agree with Ms. McCain that there is an illogical connection between the issues of life and marriage. However, to maintain that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman is a far cry from anti-gay rhetoric. If that were the case, then Barack Obama must also be “whipping up” anti-gay sentiment, since his position on the question is virtually identical.

Though Ms. McCain’s efforts may be well meaning, she displays a weak grasp of the foundation and philosophy that is conservatism and the Republican Party. Perhaps she needs to [6] reread a quote from one of her gay friends. His view embodies the conservative and, therefore, Republican philosophy well: “Where I stand politically doesn’t begin and end with my sexuality.” Conservatism, which must remain the core of the Republican Party, does not begin and end with anyone’s sexuality, race, creed, or religion. It is a philosophy that values an individual because of his unalienable rights.

Ms. McCain is like an ideological carpetbagger. A moderate, she floats into the political culture on the wings of her father’s name in order to set Republicans straight and push them into what she defines as the mainstream, a mission eerily similar to the one her father engaged in for many years. It is unfortunate, for the sake of our Republic, that John McCain was defeated in November, despite his moderate leanings. However, if the Republican Party were to follow the advice of another McCain, the result would be more electoral defeats, further shrinking of the Republican base, and more blurring of the differences between the two parties.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

Obama's gun lies

EDITORIAL: Washington Times

The "liar, liar pants on fire" argument usually isn't the most effective. But when it comes to guns, President Obama is lying through his teeth.

On Thursday, while on a visit to Mexico, the president continued his Blame America First tour. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States," he said, referring to the drug wars that are tearing apart our neighbor to the south. "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border."

It is completely untrue that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. The Mexican government separates guns it confiscates that were made in the United States and sends them here to be traced. U.S. weapons are easy to identify because of clear markings.

Of the ones sent here to be traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number.

Democrats aren't alone in repeating phony gun statistics. The New York Times, CNN and numerous networks continue to repeat the 90 percent figure with no reporting to back it up. The hysteria is used to create the notion that a major problem exists with American guns - and Mr. Obama is anxious to step in to solve that problem with a $400 million program to stop U.S. guns from going to Mexico. That initiative would include clampdowns on U.S. gun shops.

It is ridiculous for Mr. Obama to blame Mexico's lawlessness on Americans as if the longstanding corruption of Mexican elected officials, judges and law-enforcement officers has nothing to do with it.

One of the root causes of corruption is low pay. Mexican police earn $460 a month, sometimes less, which makes bribes hard to resist. There are about 350,000 policemen in Mexico. The $400 million Mr. Obama has promised for his anti-gun program could raise the annual salary of every Mexican cop by $1,143, a 21 percent increase. But the president wouldn't be interested in that because his real agenda is to pursue gun control here at home.

Afghanistan Eyes Gun-for-Hire Clampdown

Prominent private security firm Xe (formerly known as Blackwater) was recently forced out of Iraq after the company was refused an operating license by the local authorities. Now it looks as if the Afghan government may tighten its oversight of armed security contractors as well.

Last week, the Afghan Ministry of Justice introduced a draft law on private security companies; while it's still too early to gauge the impact of the new law, it's clear that the Afghan government will be taking a closer look at the conduct of the guns-for-hire.

In a press conference last week, Alexander Nikitin, a member of the UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries said he believed the legislation would boost oversight of private security firms. While he had not seen the full text of the bill, he said: "the Working Group is of the general view that legislation, which would ensure oversight and monitoring by the state of private security companies, as well as their accountability, is a positive development."

The UN Working Group on mercenaries -- part of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights -- is primarily a talking shop, but two of the panel's members visited Afghanistan last week to get a closer read on the situation there. Nikitin noted the scale of the private security market: Afghanistan's Ministry of Interior licenses 39 companies, employing 23,000 people, most of them Afghan nationals. Previously, over 60 companies operated in the Afghan market.

As the U.S.-led coalition boosts its presence in Afghanistan, oversight and regulation of security contractors could be a thorny issue. The U.S. military depends on hired guns to provide convoy security and to protect installations; U.K. security firm Aegis won a contract in January to run Afghanistan's "armed contractor oversight directorate," which will responsible for tracking for tracking armed contractors hired by the U.S. military.