Veronica Estrada's blog

As excerpted on FOX Nation:

While we were watching Kagan's confirmation last week, an amendent sponsored by Senator Ronald "Blago-pal" Burris (D-Ill.) and spawned by the Senate Armed Services Committee's 15-12 vote in late May, will allow abortion procedures in clinics or hospitals on military installations worldwide.  The amendment to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act passed the Senate along a partyline vote, with the exception of Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson. 

The Washington Times accurately calls it a "ruse" to "accomplish radical social change - to mainstream abortion, to press the government into providing it on a widespread scale so that it becomes respectable and ordinary":

In late May, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an 11th-hour amendment by Democratic Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois to overturn the long-standing restrictions on abortion in military hospitals during the committee's work on the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act and after protracted debate on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Burris amendment passed on a party-line vote with one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voting no. While Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings directed attention away from the Defense authorization bill, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has called for this issue to be dealt with as soon as possible after the Senate returns from August recess.

Under current law, Department of Defense resources may be used for emergency abortions to save the mother's life and in cases of rape or incest, restrictions first added to the U.S. Code in 1984 and 1996.

Elective abortions, on the other hand, have been disallowed in military hospitals for decades, with the exception of a brief period when President Clinton reversed the policy in January 1993, only to have Congress vote to restore it in 1995. Under current law, military women are free to leave the base and make their own private arrangements for an elective abortion.

Mr. Burris' amendment would overturn current law so that elective abortions are performed in U.S. military clinics and hospitals by military personnel, putting the armed forces in competition with Planned Parenthood as the nation's largest abortion provider.

Critics of the current law say their biggest concern is sexual assault in the military, but this is highly disingenuous, as current law provides a specific exception allowing the use of military facilities to abort a child conceived in rape.

They also cite Iraq and Afghanistan and complain that abortion laws in those countries limit off-base abortion options. But this, too, is meant to deceive. If this were the real concern of Mr. Burris and his allies, he could have crafted his measure to address it. Instead, he took a bludgeon to current law across the board so that the greatest impact would be felt right here on U.S. soil, where abortion is virtually unlimited throughout pregnancy and 1.2 million children are aborted every year.

Read the rest.

This just doubly reveals the duplicitous nature of President Obama's "no fed funding for abortions" Executive Order to get healthcare passed.

Planned Parenthood, of course, supports the amendment, saying:

The vote repealing this discriminatory and dangerous ban is the first step..

This is discrimination against unplanned persons.

I'd like to know how many servicewomen have been because abortion procedures were not readily accessible to them, especially when President Obama already made it a federal requirement for all military bases to carry Plan B, the morning after pill  back in February of this year, even though bases have always had the option to carry the abortive drug.

Our taxpayer dollars at work.

Never trust anything coming out of Chicago.

Crossposted.

It's a blip on the radar, but we'd better get used to it. For now, 30 states say they're using it via DMVs to track identity theives:

New York this year became one of more than 30 states to deploy the controversial technology at its Department of Motor Vehicles. Gov. David A. Paterson will brief reporters Tuesday on hundreds of cases the state is prosecuting as a result — including at least one that officials will tout as a major criminal apprehension.

New York officials would not comment prior to the briefing, but the Empire State is just the latest in a long line to find that facial recognition can be a powerful tool to unmask identity thieves and other imposters.

...

Facial-recognition software automatically examines digital photographs, comparing the unique underlying structures of the face across different images — flagging suspicious matches.

..

Brian Zimmer of the Coalition for a Secure Driver's License told The Times that what distinguishes New York, Indiana and a dozen or so states that he said take a similar "hard line on imposters" is that "every attempt at fraud is prosecuted," and that officials press felony charges. The coalition is a nonprofit that advocates the introduction of anti-fraud measures in motor vehicle departments nationwide.

Mr. Zimmer said New York had carefully piloted facial-recognition technology for more than a year before rolling it out in January "to ensure full scale application throughout the state would be successful, and not lead to mistakes or service delays. I understand that hundreds of people have been arrested so far this year as a result of its deployment."

And blah, blah.

Pay attention: always perk your ears when you hear about a "non-profit" working to promote a government agency.

Non-profits are like lobbyists. Only, they usually specialize in lobbying the public to accept whatever (usually progressive) policy is being implemented by the state.

They're on the state's payroll. The government dime. The taxpayer's dole. That should tell you who they "work for."

So .. when anyone tells you the bureaucracy of the state is growing larger and larger, think about including non-profits. They compete for government funds, so of course they'll mold themselves to pushing, advocating, cultivating and activating the state message.

Now, getting back to Zimmer.

Zimmer's organization, the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License, basically sets about promoting the implementation, compliance and enforcement of the Real ID Act, which sets minimum standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards. The law is based off of the 9/11 Commission report and, of course, there are privacy concerns. At one point, Napolitano wanted to have it repealed.

A quick google shows that back in 2007, Zimmer was a lead lobbyist for Kelly, Anderson and Associates. He testified in front of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security in May, 2007 as part of the "Interrupting Terrorist Travel:  Strengthening the Security of International Travel Documents" testimony.

Ronald K. Nobel, the then-and-now Secretary-General of INTERPOL was on the same panel with him.

At the end of April 2010, as part of the Coalition for Secure Drivers Licenses, he was part of a Secure Documents forum, where he was session chair for "Developments in Technology and Applications for Identification cards, Driver's Licenses and Smart Cards"

Included in that session was Virginia's "new state Identity Document (ID)" where "driver's license meet the federal standards, and go beyond."

INTERPOL was part of that forum, too .. but, you know, they talk passports, counterfeit money and currency.Here in the states, you won't hear how INTERPOL wanted a worldwide facial recognition database to nap suspects in '08.

So, you can imagine about that "beyond" standard Virginia licenses are establishing.

Once something goes national, it's a matter of time before it's tapped into what's occurring worldwide.

Over across the pond, they use facial recognition tech at airports and are proposing other uses through the compilation of giant databases.

How we'll be using this technology does not remain to be seen.

It's here, now.

Zimmer's group called itself a "public educational charity."

I didn't know about this, did you?

From Obama's May 2nd Michigan Graduation Speech:

Today's twenty-four seven echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before. It has also, however, given us unprecedented choice. ...we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.

This development can be both good and bad for democracy. .. if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.

This of course requires that we all agree on a certain set of facts to debate from, and that is why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads.

The White House's "I Love you back!/(Laughter)/(Applause)" version of this speech is also available. H/T to the hubby.

Happy 4th of July.

President Obama has taken complete control of the First Amendment in an around the Gulf of Mexico region; the physical breadth of the BP oil spill will now work as a map, where 65 feet beyond the borders of this oily map, America's freedom as we know it has ceased to exist.

Not even the President's media lapdogs can tell the Truth if they want to.

With this latest development, the Obama Administration has effectively given us a clue of what's in store for America: we don't need a free press when the government can supply all the information we need, via whatever medium is available. As you read this, realize that this is a pre-cursor to Obama's plans to equalize the internet -- where complete government control of the internet will guarantee that content will be regulated and restricted, and we can anticipate he will pipe unfettered, "unbiased" government information into homes across America. Something like what Neil says has been enacted in Finland.

He's fulfilling his campaign promises to "connect and empower all Americans through technology and innovation" .. and "to help unprecedented numbers of citizens take back the political process" like he did with his use of the internet "to transform presidential politics."

What we are seeing is Obama's "Journalism Re-invention" in action -- his piping a speech to kids without parental permission during classtime is pigeon compared to what he's trying to pull now.

We already know the White House controls the media. Now the Obama Administration is using the BP oil spill to restrict access and information to completely control the message that is broadcast to the public.

This is NOT THE FIRST TIME he has shut out the media's access to a news event.. First he excludes and evades -- repeatedly, then he shuts out media access, and now he's passed enforceable law.

Under threat of being charged with a Class D Felony and a $40,000 fine, journalists, bloggers, and photographers cannot come within 65 feet of response vessels working the BP spill or booms floating in the Gulf or laying on beaches.

This 65 foot "exclusion zone" had been reduced from 300 feet and is yet another restriction placed on photographers and reporters. At the end of May, the FAA and Coast Guard would not allow private charter planes carrying media to fly below 3,000 feet to better document the BP disaster.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported Thursday that ["the [65 foot "exclusion zone"] order was a Coast Guard-wide directive from the top."

CNN's Anderson Cooper reports on the impact this will have on holding the federal government accountable -- by documenting and ensuring timely responses to boom removal, animal rescue and just getting the local's version of the BP story out:

*See the VID at Redstate

Locals in the Times-Picayunne also reported that the 65-foot restriction could "block photographers and reporters from accessing some waterways altogether."

So, absolutely no one would have access to anywhere the federal government deemed it necessary to lay a boom. Too many snoopy photographers? Lay a boom. Too many journalists accessing a waterway? Lay another boom.

What an effective "corralling" of the BP narrative without public oversight.

The Obama Administration will be whitewashing bad PR-damaging images like this that read "Look, a poor bird near the boom those government crews haven't cleaned up yet! They are so damn slow and inefficient!" --

with sanitized pics like this that scream "Not a moment to lose! Your Taxdollars hard at work!!" directly from their "Been There Since Day 1" Official Deepwater Horizon Joint Command Site:

The Obama Administration is well-aware of the power of the internet. Without reporters and bloggers providing clear pictures and descriptions of the events as they happen, where they happen, when they happen, readers and the rest of the media will flock to the information that is readily accessible.

The Obama Administration is ready.

Taking the lead from the Obama's massive BarackObama.com site that still stands at the ready, the DNC's populist-persuasion website and other propagandist sites the left has used to swindle the American people, Federal Deepwater, Inc. has some very cool apps that will help conceal, cover up and camouflage the federal government's lackadaisical response to the nation's worst environmental disaster that hit the Gulf on Obama's watch. It includes:

• A Flickr link
• a YouTube Channel
• a Twitter feed
• a Facebook page
• SMS alerts
• live webcam feeds
• an RSS feed, complete with email subscripts that will pipe photos and media blips directly to your browser and mailbox

• oh -- and a cool widget for your blog, website or page so you can be linked to THE primary source of news and information coming out of the area via a permanent Twitter, News and Links update (complete with ShareThis plugin).

Remember, this 65-foot restriction under pain of felony charges and $40K in fines, will black out media giants CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, CBS -- everyone. Where will America get our our news about BP now? How long before America becomes bored of hearing regurgitated press releases and sanitized photos taken by a federal employee?

I'd rather have the candids of the Free Press than staged pics ("Wait! Go back and do that again!") that would rival the boredom generated from watching Obama's useless flickr photostream.

Obama knows that we will tire with whatever comes from the official federal government newsfeed, because he'll be using the same drone-inducing spell progressives have used for generations: it's fake. Fraudulent. People can only take so much lying to before they turn away and tune out in disgust.

And now, it's a federal crime to tell the Truth.

Sometime in the future, the only "truth" America may "officially" know will be what the government tells the public through the internet; nationalizing parts of the media will not be the only way for the federal government to indoctrinate, spread propaganda, and garner votes.

What the Obama Administration proves with this 65-foot restriction is that "transparency" is a gimmick, a buzzword as useless as Obama's "hope" -- but as lethal to America as his radical, socialist sort of "change," because he's used the word "transparency" to create a false sense of security and reframe the public's image of the quintessential corrupt, calculating politician.

Transparent.

This fraud is killing Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.

How long will you and I have a right to say that?

"Wherever despotism abounds, the sources of public information are the first to be brought under its control." ~Calvin Coolidge

[Edit]: A summary that exposes deeper ramifications:

New Scientist, a popular site with over 3 million unique visitors a month, initially responded to the nation's first abortion ban based on fetal pain in April 2010 with a simple "briefing" that wasn't widely repeated throughout the web. The article focused on discrediting Nebraska's 20-week abortion "Fetal Pain" restriction as "debatable."

Late last week, New Scientist followed up (HT Tabitha Hale's Amplify) with a direct refutation of the "pain claim" by citing a UK study that had been picked up by UPI and the AP for mass distribution.

This study has subsequently appeared in Time, CBS, The Money Times, MSNBC, and The Washington Post.

The headliner for these articles on the UK study generally state, " Fetus Can't Feel Pain  Before 24 Weeks." What these articles aren't telling the public is that this study advocates absolutely no regard for the pain (and therefore treatment of pain) of the unborn before or after 24 weeks - throughout the duration of the pregnancy, in fact - even for corrective procedures performed on fetuses in utero, something that is typically done here in the United States.

In the United States, we have our own studies concluding the opposite of the UK study. Methods of administering fetal anesthesia are widely discussed. This is the neonatal care standard we've practiced here in the United States as our technology advances. Neonatal care is a profession.

The widespread dissemination by the leftist mainstream media of this worthless UK study that can readily by discredited by medical studies and medical methodology accepted and practiced here in the US flies in the face of reason -- so much so, one can easily assume why abortionists would be interested in dismissing the pain of the littlest ones.

Back in April, Nebraska passed the first-ever "Fetal "Pain" abortion bill -- the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (LB 1103 ) -- to prevent the abortions of fetuses older than 20 weeks...

...by an overwhelming pro-life majority of 44 in favor and 5 against. The governor wasted no time in signing the measure into law.The law portends a fresh challenge and new look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, which led to the virtual legalization of abortion on demand. The Nebraska law applies a different standard – that of the unborn child’s ability to feel pain - for restricting abortion, while the high court used the standard of what they then considered to be point of fetal viability.

The Supreme Court considered fetuses "viable" beginning at 24 weeks when deciding Roe v. Wade, a mistake subsequent Justices would argue :

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion.

Nebraska's LB 1103 would be is the first state to regulate abortion according to the interests of the baby, not according to the interests of the mother:

"The Nebraska Legislature took a bold step today which should ratchet up the abortion debate across America," said Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life in a statement.

"LB 1103 creates a case of first impression for the courts to acknowledge the capability to feel pain as a compelling state interest to protect those unborn babies from an excruciatingly painful death.”

The legislation bans abortions after 20 weeks of post-fertilization age except in two cases: first, when the pregnancy puts the mother in danger of death or “substantial and irreversible” physical harm to a major bodily function. The second exception allows an abortionist to perform an abortion in order to increase the probability of a live birth, or to preserve an unborn child’s life and health after a live birth.

This is important, because this law shifts the argument from the focus of time restrictions for would-be aborting mothers to the focus of the effects of the abortion itself on the fetus -- from the interests of the mother to the interests of the child. It forces society and the courts to admit the human-ness of the fetus and consider their suffering in a very real death.

To pass LB 1103, Nebraska cited the 2004 testimony of Kanwaljeet Anand from the University of Tennessee Health Science Center who testified on the federal partial birth abortion ban (subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007):

Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, a pioneer in the study of fetal pain and now a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, testified in 2004 on the federal partial birth abortion ban that after 20 weeks gestation, an unborn child would experience “severe and excruciating pain” from an abortion.

The pain may even be more acute than it would be for older humans, as some research indicates their immature nervous systems have not developed coping mechanisms that help the body better endure pain.

The law notes that unborn children have been observed to “seek to evade certain stimuli” in a manner that “would be interpreted as a response to pain.” Additionally, the bill says unborn children exhibit “hormonal stress responses to painful stimuli” that were reduced with the application of pain medication.

Abortion supporters want to call that evasion of "certain stimuli" a reflex action, similar to a knee-jerk responding to a tap on the knee or a finger removing itself from a heat source before being sensed by the brain.

When Nebraska passed LB 1103 in April of this year, New Scientist.com came out with a 2-page rebuttal to the law's fetal-pain argument. The site claimed that changing the terms of abortion is inappropriate because pain experienced by fetuses as young as 20 weeks is "far from certain." The site's most vile assertion is the lie that "before most abortions the fetal heart is stopped by a drug – usually digoxin or potassium chloride . The fetus cannot feel pain after that."

Using digoxin or potassium chloride on fetuses did not begin to be seriously considered by abortionists until after the Supreme Court upheld the federal partial birth abortion ban in 2007, and only then for the abortion of fetuses older than 20 weeks. Even so, an "interest" by those who slaughter the unborn does not constitute a widespread, enforceable mandate.

Potassium chloride is also the same chemical used for the lethal injection of prisoners, a practice New Scientist claims is inhumane .

So while New Scientist will consider the inhumane manner of death of a condemned person, this same publication will blatantly dismiss the pain of the unborn as merely "reflexive," "irrelevant," and even "completely irrational."

Last week, New Scientist reiterated their support for abortion by using a study by the UKs Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to refute the opinion of American researchers. Keep in mind that the UK has full-blown socialized medicine , where abortion on demand has been rising for years and where medical procedures are pre-determined by committee according to "harms and benefits" -- or cost-effectiveness.

New Scientist cited a "working party report " that argues that since the pre-born fetuses exist in a state of unconsciousness, that consciousness is needed to experience pain. Therefore, pre-born fetuses, regardless of gestational age, "even after 24 weeks" would not benefit from pain medication.

"After 24 weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks" .. "Such connections to the cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient , as experience of external stimuli requires consciousness . ..[T]he fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero ... [ i]s in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness ... [that] suppress[es] higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. ..

[I]n the light of current evidence, the Working Party concluded that the use of analgesia provided no clear benefit to the fetus. ... [F]etal analgesia should not be employed where the only consideration is concern about fetal awareness or pain . Similarly, there appeared to be no clear benefit in considering the need for fetal analgesia prior to termination of pregnancy, even after 24 weeks , in cases of fetal abnormality.

New Scientist ends their article with

"It is only after birth, with the separation of the baby from the uterus and the umbilical cord, that wakefulness truly begins."

According to the RCOG, only once that umbilical cord is cut can a child experience pain, never before.

By citing this wretched study, the argument of New Scientist and all pro-abortion advocates is clear:  pain experienced by fetuses in utero is hardly significant, and whatever ground the pro-life camp makes, the tide must be turned around, 360 degrees. Therefore, define fetuses as sub-human, never requiring pain medication, regardless of gestational age.

If the Supreme Court were to agree with the RCOG study, the issue of viability in Roe v. Wade would be moot. The experience of pain would be the true threshold, and that would only occur once the umbilical is cut when everyone can hear the newborn cry.

Abortionists like these subscribe to ideas similar to this one:

When a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.

Since these abortionists aren't there in the womb with the baby to see it writhe in pain, the baby's pain must not exist.

It would follow that neither does "a baby."

Crossposted at Redstate.

Restage via Reuters

There's a reason you have to pick a side.

If you're not pro-Israel, then you are pro-pacifist and should begin planning your next trip to New York to coincide with the groundbreaking of the Ground Zero Mosque.

From the NYPost via NewsReal:

The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.

Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel's blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/imam_unmosqued_0XbZMwCvHAVdRZEKgx29AK#ixzz0q0hi2Wcf

Changing America: human rights outweighing sovereignty and defense.

Lest Senate Democrats choose to insert the language of S. 1346 into another bill, sitting en queue is The Bill Dick Cheney and the Sundry Bad Guys who prosecuted The Engagement Formerly Known as WOT TM should be worried about.

So should anyone else who defends America on foreign soil. So should our allies.

Introduced by Democratic Senators Durbin, Cardin, Feingold, Feinstein, and Leahy in June '09 and considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee May 6th, the Crimes Against Humanity Act  would more than just "[open] the door to demands of reciprocity from other nations that seek to prosecute US military personnel and government officials for alleged criminal acts committed anywhere in the world" by establishing "universal jurisdiction," as Heritage argues.

This piece of legislation would also:

1. domesticate all crimes against humanity as defined by the UN -- including  terrorism on American soil --  making these crimes punishable by federal prosecutors and judges 
2. afford reciprocity in other countries, subjecting our military and elected officials to -- not just The Hague -- but to the "Crimes Against Humanity" laws of other countries
3. tie the hands of our elected officials and military, as every plan of action to defend our country must comply "with all of the foreign nation's applicable laws"
4. limit any foreseeable way for America to ever utilize its nuclear arsenal in retaliation to strikes against our homeland
5. exacerbate instability in the Middle East by signaling the non-existant threat of US retaliation in defending allies (such as Great Britain or Israel)

Not only would we not retaliate, we could not. Our nuclear posture would be eliminated by institutionalizing international law.

This would be the domino effect for nuclear disarmament, absent a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, through the pretense of protecting human rights.

Under Obama, the nuclear option is off the table for America, as would be expected for our allies. Under this scenario, a swift end to World War II would not have been possible, without subsequent prosecution for war crimes. We would have been standing right next to Hitler's men at The Hague.

And just as we've moved KSM to federal court, mirandized Abdulmutallab, and unnecessarily publicized the federal complaint against Faisal Shahzad -- calculated moves to show compliance with international norms -- the most Americans could expect if rogue nations like Iran or North Korea were to strike America might be prosecution in absentia.

S. 1346 establishes "universal jurisdiction" in America without Senate treaty ratification of ICC, effectively completing a parallel track, achieving the UN's goal of international jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity.

This is worse than Obama's Treaty for Utopia, and his supposed naivete' is fast disappearing.

Obama would guarantee every terrorist the constitutional rights afforded citizens of the United States, completely neutralize our defensive arsenal by preventing America from utilizing every available resource, and would subject all US citizens to potential prosecution in other countries through reciprocity.

The highest court of appeal would no longer be the Supreme Court.

The ICC would be the supreme law of the land.

And in setting this precedence, our allies will soon be pressured by the international community to follow suit in implementing similar "Crimes Against Humanity" laws, limiting their own ability to defend themselves using any and all means necessary.

 -- with Hugo Estrada

~~~

Crossposted at NewsReal Blog,

Them.

Katie lied, and Bloomberg tried.

Doubly so.

Sunday evening, May 2nd, amid the massive hunt for the Times Square Car Bomber, CBS’s Katie Couric and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg exchanged pleasantries:

Couric:  Law enforcement officials don’t know who left the Nissan Pathfinder behind, but at this point, the mayor believes the suspect acted alone.

Bloomberg: If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that, somebody—

Katie :  A home-grown.

Bloomberg:  Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn`t like the health-care bill or something. It could be anything [but not Islamic extremists?].

At this point in the investigation, the Mayor, no doubt, wanted to take the lead of his predecessor Rudy Giuliani and keep this terrorist attack — designed to murder Americans in the heart of downtown New York City – apolitical.

Or did he?

By Sunday morning, law enforcement officials were already viewing surveillance footage pulled overnight.

After acquiring the VIN number from the engine block (get that, future terrorists?) at 7:30a, they immediately tracked down the Pathfinder owner and first interviewed her that Sunday morning, where she gave an accurate physical description of the terrorist.

A Connecticut newspaper reported:

Sources familiar with the investigation said the gray SUV was owned by Peggy Colas, a 19-year-old from Bridgeport.

Investigators first spoke to her on Sunday when she told them she sold the car for $1,300 cash to a man she described as being of either Hispanic or Middle Eastern descent.

CBS would report, via AP, that the registration holder of the car, Colas’s father, was questioned Sunday night, but failed to mention the Sunday morning interview.  

CBS would only mention the Sunday morning interview Tuesday night via a subsequent AP circulation that had taken hold in other prominent news organizations, long after the Times Square terrorist had been captured and the cat let out of the bag.

The key piece of information law enforcement would have culled from their first interview with Peggy Colas that Sunday morning would have been, no doubt, a physical description of their primary suspect. 

And that interview occurred before Bloomberg’s infamous interview with Katy Couric on Sunday evening.

So the questions are, Mayor Bloomberg and CBS:

Are you that inept?

Are you that disconnected from your law enforcement — during a national crisis — to not have the physical description, to not know who they were looking for, to not be able to share this vital piece of information with the public?

The public cannot be vigilant when vital information is withheld.

And they weren’t looking for a white male, angry about Obamacare.

If you didn’t have the facts, why offer this random opinion to the world?

As Mayor of New York, you were there to tell the public their government has a clue as to what the hell’s going on, not make wild assertions and spread inflammatory innuendo based  on what you know are partisan politics.

As President Obama recently reminded us, you’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Crossposted at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog and my blog.

Watching Big Oil Burn

In the spirit of "keep[ing] the boot on the neck of British Petroleum (BP)," per Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, CBS News and Politico are reporting the new Witch Hunt of BP and its cohorts, Transocean and Halliburton. 

The American public is about to witness a very public flogging, something reminiscent of a 17th century stoning of evil-doers by the mob before being dragged to a pyre to be burned alive. 

Something like what should’ve been done to that evil oil spill before it creeped its way to the Lousiana shore. 

BP et al will be facing hearings before:

• Witch Hunt Waxman's Energy and Commerce Commitee
• House Committee on Natural Resources
• The Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming
• House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment
• House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
• Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
• House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
• Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government
• House Committee on Natural Resources

BP and companies tied to the spill are also being sued for $5 million by commercial shrimpers Acy J. Cooper Jr. and Ronnie Louis Anderson in a class action lawsuit representing all affected Louisiana residents. 

Then there's the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act," authored by Senator Robert Menendez, and co-signed by Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Bill Nelson, to up the $75 million liability cap to $10 billion for Big [Bad] Oil Company oil spills. 

And then Senator Nelson wants the media to remember the reports of Sex for Oil between Denver government regulators and oil company representatives who allegedly traded nooky for mineral rights. 

So far CBS and leftist Think Progress are the only ones to bite Nelson’s May 4th press prelease referencing the "all kinds of booze parties, all kinds of marijuana parties, and all kinds of sex parties" from 2002 to 2006 amongst greasy oilmen and hot government gals. 

Prostitution charges were never filed. 

If old-news Pay-to-Play political sex romps are used to determine "whether oil and gas industry have exerted too much influence over regulators," does this mean that all old sexual trysts in the political realm are fair game? 

Who among them will cast the first stone?

Crossposted at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog and my blog.

Crossposted at David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog.

Waiting for the Right Wave to Ride

Though we're not part of his inner circle or privy to his counsel, we can still determine President Obama's political will based on the political waves he chooses to ride.  

Last week, as he demonized Arizona legislators attempting to enforce federal immigration laws, America discovered that crude, not criminality, poses greater "national significance" for Obama's Administration. 

His public announcement more than a week after the BP rig explosion to "determine" the cause of the disaster – though already deemed an accident by his own Press Secretary– was an effort to reframe his Katrina-style dithering to the new narrative appearing April 30th on the official Deepwater Horizon website:

"The federal government has been fully engaged in the response since the incident occurred April 20."

Sending in swat teams and cadres of lawyers doesn't fulfill the Coastal State Commitment Obama made during his campaign "that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur." 

Though having commandeered every crisis of the past 14 months, dismissing criticism he could "only handle one challenge at a time," Obama still side-stepped Deep Horizon, though his administration immediately knew the breadth and scope of the massive oil spill. 

Late last week, while officials clamoured to wait on President Obamato activate up to 6,000 National Guardmembers, Louisiana Governor Jindal appealed to Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security April 29th, the same day the oil spill was projected to reach the Louisiana shore.  

By late evening April 30th, when Obama finally approved the mobilization of the Guard, the timeliness of his response to this crisis of "national significance"couldn't match the quick and decivise "troop surge" with which he responded to Haiti. 

Recording their first oiled bird isn't handling Deep Horizon, nor is forgetting to mention the oil spill in his weekly address. 

These measured responses demonstrate Obama's political will, as he has chosen to label Deep Horizon an event of “national significance”over America's immigration crisis. 

Preoccupied by the coastal border, Obama is said to have dropped his pursuit of illegal immigration reform, citing Democrats' "lack of 'appetite' to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election."' This delay is yet another measured tactic Obama has chosen over the lives and security of countless Americans, an immigration "carrot" to secure votes through the 2010 and 2012 elections. 

In choosing crude over criminality, Obama trivializes the 2,158 murders of the last 14 months and  other serious crimes committed by illegal aliens, and the 7,000 drug war-related deaths in Mexico. We have a war occurring along our souther border that rivals the Afghanistan conflicts, where we had 926 deaths in 2009. Under his watch, Arizona's capital city of Phoenix has been labeled Kidnapping Capital of the USA for over a year now, rivaling Mexico City for the world title. 

American lives are in danger on the Homeland, a fact that even the media recognizes. 

Will President Obama address the crime wave spilling over America's southern border? 

Crossposted at David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog and at my blog.

This is a true story.

My little 1st grader got home, just as Mom was pulling out and plugging in the vacuum.

Me: "Hey, Baby, how was your day?"

7-Year-Old Baby: "Great, Mom. Today was Earth Day."

Me: [shouting over vacuum]: "Okaaay, great. Your snack's on the table. I'll be right with you." [VRRROOOOOM!!!!]

..

Pardon me, PC-ers. Hell. It's not even about PC anymore. In today's American progressive body politic, we are openly being bullied into adopting a lifestyle not many of us would have chosen for our own. No one even thinks about who funds the junk science anymore, or who the researchers, hungry for cash to keep themselves employed in this freaking economy, are really working for -- science or the state?

Enviro-statism has wormed its way into every crevice of society, without even being legislated through Congress. It was Ban ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, who said that these sort of progressive ideas needed to be "embedded into the culture."

Right.

So, now we have children coming home throughout the year, mumbling about recycling, badgering us about our light-bulb usage, showing us their colored recycling diagrams alongside their completed math handouts. We have "Environmental Stimulus Cash Back!" stickers posted on every appliance at Sears (where we just got our new energy-efficient dishwasher). We have recycled milk jugs, our spouses filling out energy consumption reports, our corporations reporting on how they protect the environment via corporate citizenship.

All without passing a single Environmental piece of legislation through Congress.

Some would say, "Without firing a shot."

Do many of us consider the depth of environmental "embedding" into our culture? Do many of us try to trace back or apply true meaning to the policies that are manifest in our daily lives? No.

Too many of us are trying to survive, keep our jobs, feed our children. The time we do have, the time we try to carve out of our meager existence here in America, we try to have fun and remove ourselves from the obvious: that nearly everything we do is politicized.

Where is our "life"?

Well, I know the depth of the embedding .. I know how the progressive agenda is trying to put "meaning" into my life, so to counter that, today, in honor of Earth Day, I will do this: make ferocious love to my husband and do it like there is no tomorrow, in remembrance of God creating man to be stewards and lord of all the Earth and of all the creatures and slimy things.

I will remember the naturalness of our bodies, and how they fit together and were intended to procreate.

I will remember how marriage and procreation glorify God.

I will remember that "children are the embodiment of the marital embrace," as my husband has whispered to me during our lovemaking, and celebrate how children, the fruit of our lovemaking, are a blessing, not a burden or a punishment.

I will remember that we come from the Earth, to be lord over the earth, not its slave, and that the Earth is a gift from God, but that the Earth is not God. Nor is the almighty dollar nor that guy in office.

I will remember that my life is a gift from God, and that lives of my husband and children are gifts from God, and are a gift to me in my lifetime, and are an expression of His love for me.

I will remember that my husband is a gift to me, a most precious gift, from God.

And I will reward my husband, with my body, and show him how much I love and appreciate that he is a conservative, God-fearing man who loves his wife, kids, friends and country.

Today, when he gets home, I will show him that no single man has it better than him, and that for all his sacred honor and the noble life I know he would give in a moment to protect me, our kids, and our country, I will be Me, Every Woman and No Other Woman to him.

This is the prerogative and duty of every conservative woman out there.

The femni-Nazi, pro-abortion whores who belittle the Conservative Woman and the Conservative Mother, they have no holds over us, girls. We will love our men and steal our families back from the brink of hell, which is Progressivism, even if it means doing it with our own bodies, just as the men we love would sacrifice their bodies so that we may live.

Our bodies.

They've been to hell and back and we can handle it. Especially while giving joy to the ones we love most, and having fun while doing it.  

What we can give, the pleasure we can bestow, it's almost nothing, yet everything at the same time.

..

So.. after the vacuuming:

Me: Okay, Baby, tell me what happened today.

7-year-old-Baby: Mom, we're having a very special day..

Me: You mean Earth Day?

7-year-old-Baby: No, Mom .. we have a very special day coming up.

Me: What's that?

7-year-old-Baby: Mother's Day! Today we started making our cards for you!

What a damn, cool teacher.

Earth Day, ladies and gents. Go celebrate your earthy selves, maybe try to make an earthy baby to add to the conservative population to kick these Progressives the hell out of office in future, and steal back our American democracy they want to steal away from us for all perpetuity.

Tonight, log off of Twitter, close your browser, shut down the computer, and put down your cell phone with all those cool apps. 

Tonight, make love, not political war.

Let's thank and remember God, first and foremost, for our ability to do so.

While we still can, before the size of our family is "embedded" away.