Thu 30 Apr 2009 14:22
Darwin Award nominee
Baytown police are investigating whether charges should be filed against a mother in connection with the death of her 1-year-old son who fell from her moving F-150 Ford truck Wednesday after not being restrained in a car seat.
The child, whose name was not released, was pronounced dead Wednesday at San Jacinto Methodist Hospital in Baytown. His mother is being treated at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston for injuries from being dragged along the pavement, police said.
When she leaped from the moving vehicle to try to save her son, she was dragged and run over by her own truck, Baytown Lt. Roger Clifford said.
“Basically, she panicked when she saw him fall. Then she remembered she still had another child, a year older, inside the moving truck,” said Clifford. The mother was torn but then decided she must stop the truck, he said.
She was dragged along the asphalt by the moving truck and then run over by the same back tire that killed her 1-year-old before the truck came to a halt, investigators said.
At that point, she returned and tried to help the 1-year-old while dialing 911, authorities said.
“She had been in a hurry when she left that morning at 10 a.m,” said Clifford, and the accident occurred as she drove through the parking lot of the Oaks of Baytown Apartments on Ward Road where she lives.
Investigators believe the truck door was partially unlatched, opening as she turned a corner, allowing the 1-year-old to slide out the door.
“We’re still looking into the incident,” Clifford said. “It’s very tragic. But it didn’t need to happen. It wouldn’t have happened if the child had been in his car seat.”
Thu 30 Apr 2009 10:38
T2MCategories: All Posts
, Polytricks No Comment
There ought to be a “rebellion” and an “uprising” against right-wing elements that are trying to purify the Republican Party, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said Tuesday, shortly after he announced he would leave the Grand Old Party to become a Democrat.
Specter said Republicans "far to the right" in the party, who are more worried about ideology than winning elections, have brought about one costly defeat after another for the GOP, including the tabling of 34 of President Bush’s nominees for federal judgeships. Those defeats were the result of the right’s opposition to moderates in the party, such as himself, said Specter.
“They [Republicans on far right] don’t make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party,” Specter said at his Tuesday press conference. “I don’t understand it, but that’s what they say.”
“And for the people who are Republicans to sit by and allow them to continue to dominate the party … there ought to be a rebellion,” he said. “There ought to be an uprising.”
Specter was referring to an adviser to Pat Toomey, the former president of the conservative Club for Growth, who announced on Apr. 15 that he would launch a primary challenge against Specter in 2010.
Specter suggested on Tuesday that his reason for switching parties was in part based on polls that indicated he was unlikely to survive Toomey’s primary challenge.
In making his argument, Specter cited several cases where conservative elements of the GOP opposed moderate Republicans and either beat them in the primary and then lost the general election, or so weakened the candidate in the primary that he could not go on to defeat the Democrat in the general election.
In 2006, moderate former-Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (R-R.I.) was weakened in a primary challenge by a conservative Republican who was supported by the Club for Growth, according to Specter. Chaffee was then defeated in the general election, which [with two independents caucusing with Democrats] changed the balance of the Senate, and cost Republicans the confirmation of 34 of President Bush’s federal judgeship nominees, said Specter.
“The Club for Growth challenged Lincoln Chafee,” said Specter. “They made him spend all his money in the primary and he lost the general. Had Lincoln Chafee been elected in 2006, the Republicans would have controlled the Senate in 2007 and 2008 and I would have been chairman of the committee.”
Until Tuesday, Specter was the ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which reports federal judgeship nominations to the floor, and is highly influential in the confirmation process.
“President Bush nominated 13 circuit judges, but they were all left on the table for President Obama,” said Specter. “President Bush nominated 21 district court judges and they were all left on the table for Obama.”
“They beat Chafee and cost of us Republican control of the Senate and 34 federal judges,” said Specter.
In 2007, Chafee quit the Republican Party to become an independent and supported the candidacy of President Barack Obama in 2008.
Thu 30 Apr 2009 10:27
, All Posts No Comment
ISSAQUAH, Wash. — A grief-stricken father is determined to put an end to an Internet fad that is killing teenagers looking for a rush.
Some 1,200 students attend Issaquah High School. And by the Center for Disease Control’s estimations, that means more than 200 of them have passed out while playing the choking game.
Statistics provided by the DB Foundation, a nonprofit educational group, show 75 percent of surveyed children between ages 9 and 16 have heard of or have played the game. Almost all teens are convinced it’s safe, but the game killed Issaquah High student Kevin Tork.
|Choking game statistics
Among 500 boys between 10 and 14 surveyed:
53% admitted to having played the game
Among those who’ve played:
86% admitted to playing at least twice a week
64% admitted to playing alone
Most said they learned about the game at school
Source: McKeon Education Group
By all accounts, Tork was an All-American kid. He’s described as a funny and helpful teen who loved drama, poetry and his kid sister.
On March 30, Tork’s sister found him dead, slumped over with a bathrobe belt tied around his neck.
"She’ll never have that picture out of her mind," said his father, Ken Tork.
Ken Tork is convinced he died while playing the choking game. The game involves cutting off the circulation to the brain until one passes out. The hope is that one wakes up with a huge rush.
Several Web sites tout the game as a safe and legal way to obtain a brief sense of euphoria and an altered state of consciousness. But Ken Tork is convinced the game, especially when played alone, is deadly 90 percent of the time.
"I would have staked my life on the fact that my son would never do this," he said. "In fact I did, and I lost."
And to spread word about the dangers of the game, Ken Tork has joined the DB Foundation. The group’s research says self-choking often takes place among well-adjusted, high-achieving students between the ages of 9 and 16. The game is said to have predominantly male participants.
Ken Tork said he warned his son months about the game, which could cause seizures, brain damage, retinal hemorrhaging and even a stroke.
Now he’s warning parents to check Internet history on home computers and to keep an eye on their teenagers, even the well-behaving ones.
"These kids are playing it underground where they don’t talk to their parents because they know. They know they’re not supposed to do this," he said.
Ken Tork says his own son was a good kid who played a game where there are no winners.
"We’ve been convicted to a life sentence of pain and loss. We’ve experienced the worst pain life can throw at you," he said
The game goes by several names, including "pass out game," "fainting game" and "black out." There are dozens of other slang names, including "natural high," "five minutes of heaven" and "purple dragon."
Warning signs include frequent or severe headaches, bruising or red linear marks around the neck, bloodshot eyes, change in attitude, disorientation or grogginess after time alone, locked or blocked doors and unusual demands for privacy.
To learn more about the choking game, click here.
Thu 30 Apr 2009 09:38
So here we are, 100 days into the great eight-year triumph of Hope over Change, a new Era of Really Good Feelings in which only one thing has become increasingly, even irrefutably, clear: President Barack Obama is about as visionary as the guy who invented Dippin’ Dots, Ice Cream of the Future. Far from sketching out a truly forward-looking set of policies for the 21st century, as his supporters had hoped, Obama is instead serving up cryogenically tasteless and headache-inducing morsels from years gone by.
On issue after issue, Obama has made it clear that instead of blasting past "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long," (as he promised in his inaugural address), he’s moving full speed ahead toward policy prescriptions that already had less fizz than a case of Billy Beer back when Jimmy Carter was urging us all to wear sweaters and turn down our thermostats. Instead of thinking outside the box, Obama is nailing it shut from the inside.
Consider the president’s recent "major" speech about transportation, yet another Castro-like exhortation in which Obama boldly rejected the failed policies of the past in favor of the failed policies of the future.
"Our highways are clogged with traffic," he noted, before unveiling his big fix: Shiny new trains that go almost twice as fast as cars. Forget that, as urban historian Joel Garreau has long documented, our country has been decentralizing its living and working patterns for decades now, migrating from virtually all urban centers (except maybe for booming Washington, D.C.) to relatively low-density suburbs. In a big, spread-out country where individualized service at the coffee stand, on cable TV, and in your computer is the new normal, our chief visionary officer is talking about a one-size-fits-all solution that will surely bomb even bigger than NBC’s Supertrain.
"Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America," said the president, while ignoring more obvious and forward-looking fixes such as modernizing air traffic control systems, deregulating airports, and unleashing private capital to build and improve roads. Instead of any genuinely interesting or remotely promising initiative, Obama offered a measly $13 billion in funds, to be directed by Vice President Joe Biden—another visitor from the future who prefers the oh-so-modern conveyance of Amtrak to the unreliable horseless carriage.
In nearly every key area of policy concern, from industrial bailouts to massive deficits, from Afghanistan to the Middle East, from education to energy, the president’s standard operating or reach back into the Carter playbook for ideas that didn’t work back then, either. All while rhetorically valuing "good ideas ahead of old ideological battles."
On the economy, and specifically on the economic crisis, Obama came to office promising a sharp break from the past. Instead, he has added so much fuel to the fires that George W. Bush ignited—exploding already swollen deficits, using TARP monies (which were statutorily provided for banks) not just for auto companies but minor auto parts manufacturers, and giving the federal government more power to seize private companies than even Henry Paulson dreamed of wielding. Such has been the extent of Obama’s me-tooism that he’s taken to defending his record by pointing out that, hey, Bush started it!
The latter was actually a rare moment of transparency; Obama’s typical M.O. is to proclaim a new era of responsibility while ushering in a new era of irresponsible debt, promise to close the revolving door of lobbyists and government while keeping it open, and vow to post all bills online for five days without doing anything of the sort. He says the bailout is "not about helping banks—it’s about helping people," then gives more of the people’s money to banks. He says he doesn’t want to run General Motors, then fires its CEO, guarantees its warranties, and wags his finger about the company’s surplus of brands. He says he’s taking a battle-axe to the budget, then offers to shave $100 million off a $3.4 trillion tab. At his gee-whiz, interactive, online town hall meeting, he laughed off the most popular question asked by web viewers—should marijuana be legalized—with a lame joke before embracing the status quo like Jimmy Carter hugging a Third World dictator.
On traditional domestic programs, too, Obama came to office with vague yet high-minded promises to rise above, for example, "the same tired debates over education that have crippled our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves." When it came to improving rotten schools, Candidate Obama vowed we would no longer be paralyzed by "Democrat versus Republican; vouchers versus the status quo; more money versus more reform."
Since then, Democrats (versus Republicans) have killed Washington, D.C.’s proven-effective voucher program (versus the status quo), and showered more federal money on schools and teachers (versus more reform). All while having the gall to maintain, as Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, that they aim to "close the achievement gap by pursuing what works best for kids, regardless of ideology."
For those Americans who voted for Obama, a question: Is this the change you had in mind?
If surveys are to believed, it is. So far, Obama has positively Reaganesque approval ratings and most polls show increases in the percentage of Americans who believe the country is headed in the right direction, even if no one is certain of the economy.
Obama has had the great good fortune to follow one of the least popular and least effective presidents in U.S. history. However, in the next 100 days, Obama will be trying to ram through the biggest alternative energy central planning scheme since Jimmy Carter unleashed the then-ballyhooed, since-forgotten boondoggle of "synfuels" onto the body politic. He will be hauling out a centralized health care scheme the likes of which haven’t been discussed since the disastrous early days of Bill Clinton’s presidency. He will be plumping for (Ted) Kennedyesque national service and Dubyaesque education spending.
In each of these, he will not much resemble that bold campaign visionary supposeldy with two feet firmly in the future. Rather, he will reveal himself to be that least inspiring of all political characters: a leader beholden first and foremost to special interests and ultra-conventional voting blocs. This at a time when the electorate is becoming increasingly unaffiliated with either the Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals.
According to the Harris Poll, which has been tracking party affiliation and political philosophy of adult Americans for 40 years, between 2007 and 2008, the most recent year for which there is data, independents were the only bloc of voters to expand—from 23 percent to 31 percent. Similarly, political moderates outnumber both liberals and conservatives. All of which suggests that Obama’s honeymoon, like all vacations from reality, will soon come to an end.
Thu 30 Apr 2009 09:20
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.
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.
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.
Wed 29 Apr 2009 21:57
MalcontentCategories: All Posts No Comment
Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America’s image abroad.
Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president’s release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America’s image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?
The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of:
"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."
There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney wanted to take away the interrogators’ Altoids before they administered "the grasp," but Department of Justice lawyers deemed this too cruel.
And that’s not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."
People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world’s first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.
As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn’t cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)
If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don’t let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.
The CIA’s interrogation techniques couldn’t be more ridiculous if they were out of Monty Python’s Spanish Inquisition sketch:
Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! …
Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch … THE COMFY CHAIR!
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! …
Now — you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.
Further up the torture ladder — from Guantanamo, not Monty Python — comes the "insult slap," which is designed to be virtually painless, but involves the interrogator invading "the individual’s personal space."
If that doesn’t work, the interrogator shows up the next day wearing the same outfit as the terrorist. (Awkward.)
I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA’s other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.
In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist’s cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators’ request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."
Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."
If the terrorist manages to survive the non-stinging caterpillar maneuver — the most fiendish method of torture ever devised by the human mind that didn’t involve being forced to watch "The View" — CIA interrogators had another sadistic trick up their sleeves.
I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except to mention the procedure’s terror-inducing name: "the ladybug."
Finally, the most savage interrogation technique at Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which is only slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.
Tens of thousands of our troops were waterboarded over the past three decades as part of their training, but not until it was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America — were liberal consciences shocked.
I think they were mostly shocked because they couldn’t figure out how Joey Buttafuoco ended up in Guantanamo.
As non-uniformed combatants, all of the detainees at Guantanamo could have been summarily shot on the battlefield under the Laws of War.
Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers, better food than is served in Afghani caves, prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flight medical care — including one terrorist who was released, whereupon he rejoined the jihad against America, after being fitted for an expensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Only three terrorists — who could have been shot — were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as "snowboarding," which is known to cause massive buttocks pain and results in approximately 10 deaths per year.
Normal human beings — especially those who grew up with my older brother, Jimmy — can’t read the interrogation memos without laughing.
At Al-Jazeera, they don’t believe these interrogation memos are for real. Muslims look at them and say: THIS IS ALL THEY’RE DOING? We do that for practice. We do that to our friends.
But The New York Times is populated with people who can’t believe they live in a country where people would put a caterpillar in a terrorist’s cell.
Wed 29 Apr 2009 21:48
MalcontentCategories: All Posts
, Polytricks No Comment
Matier and Ross
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was out to make a splash this past weekend up at the state Democratic convention in Sacramento, and he did – with a $100,000 block party featuring Wyclef Jean that was paid for by a host of corporate and labor sponsors.
The tech-savvy Newsom brigade put out a Facebook and Twitter call to young volunteers from around the state, most of whom had never even met the mayor. Three hundred of them showed to wave signs and cheer when he addressed the convention Saturday.
They also handed out 1,500 reusable aluminum water bottles, embossed with Gavin’s name – a reminder of his fight against water bottled in nonrecyclable plastic.
The biggest display, however, came Saturday night when a Newsom-groomed group called California College Democrats hosted a block party for the mayor in midtown Sacramento.
The event featured plenty of booze, food and a star performance by Jean, the Haitian American hip-hop musician who befriended Newsom at a Global Initiative conference hosted by former President Bill Clinton.
Sacramento Mayor and former Cal/Phoenix Suns basketball guard Kevin Johnson – who made sure the permits were issued to shut down the street to traffic from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. – showed up long enough to take the stage and declare Newsom the "next governor of California."
As for the tab?
All told, the California College Democrats – with the help of Sacramento PR consultant Jason Kinney - collected $100,000 from sponsors, including AT&T, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the California Teachers Association, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 6 and Greentech California – a green money coalition that also happens to be one of Kinney’s clients.
How’s that for "change"?
We’re also told that Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a longtime fixture in state politics, wasn’t too keen on Newsom’s "out with the old, in with the new" convention speech – leading the two to exchange words backstage.
"Newsom was addressing a system, not a person," said his campaign manager, Eric Jaye.
Wed 29 Apr 2009 18:57
Piotr Stanczak’s body was flown to Warsaw’s military airport on a Pakistani air force plane. In a short ceremony on the tarmac, a Roman Catholic priest prayed over the white casket.
Dressed in black, Stanczak’s son and girlfriend stood briefly by the casket, their heads bowed.
The geologist was one of a handful of foreigners kidnapped in Pakistan in recent months as the country witnessed deterioration in security along with a rise in al-Qaida and Taliban-led violence.
Stanczak was kidnapped Sept. 28 close to the Afghan border while he was carrying out a project for a Krakow-based geophysics company that surveys oil and gas fields.
He was held hostage for several months before his captors beheaded him in February, a killing that they videotaped.
On Sunday, a car dropped the casket near a paramilitary camp in Razmak, Pakistan.
Officials then confirmed the remains were those of Stanczak.
Wed 29 Apr 2009 18:47
MalcontentCategories: All Posts
, Bullshit No Comment
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Breast cancer survivor Christina Applegate made the cover of People magazine’s 100 most beautiful people issue on Wednesday in a list that welcomed newcomers U.S. first lady Michelle Obama and "Twilight" heart-throb Robert Pattinson.
Pattinson’s vampire-loving co-star Kristen Stewart, teen music idols Nick and Joe Jonas and "Slumdog Millionaire" star Dev Patel also made the coveted list for the first time, in the celebrity magazine’s annual issue that hits newsstands on Friday.
Applegate, 37, the star of the U.S. TV show "Samantha Who?," won admiration for going public last year about her breast diagnosis and later underwent a double mastectomy.
The actress, who has since undergone reconstructive breast surgery, told People in an interview it was hard to look at herself naked.
"You don’t look the same anymore and you never will. A part of you is gone. … It’s a decision that you made to save your life," she said. It was Applegate’s third appearance on the People list.
Michelle Obama, who has achieved celebrity status and has wowed the world as a fashion icon, made the list for the first time.
"I had a father and a brother who thought I was beautiful, and they made me feel that way every single day," Obama told the magazine.
"I grew up with very strong male role models who thought I was smart and fast and funny, so I heard that a lot. I know that there are many young girls who don’t hear it. But I was fortunate," she added.
Also included in a "Barack’s Beauties" section were White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others.
Pattinson, 22, who has a huge teen girl following after appearing in the "Twilight" movie blockbuster, said he didn’t quite understand his heartthrob status.
"I don’t get it. It’s funny, you look the same for years and no one ever mentions it. Then suddenly it’s a big deal," he told People.
The 100 list also included old favorites George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and Halle Berry. Some of the celebrities, including actress Eva Mendes and supermodel Cindy Crawford appeared in a "Stars Without Makeup" section in which they were photographed wearing no make-up for their close-ups.
Wed 29 Apr 2009 18:34
MalcontentCategories: All Posts No Comment
By JB Williams
Republican Senator Judd Gregg was Obama’s first choice for the Secretary of Commerce post, and Gregg was actually considering joining the Obama team, until he found out that control of the US Census was being stripped from the Commerce Department and placed under the direct control of White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Then, the same week that Americans learned that they were “domestic terrorists”—at least according to Obama’s new DHS (Department of Homeland Security),—if they own a bible, a pocket Constitution or guns, and still believe in Life, Liberty and Freedom, – they also learned that Obama’s Census Bureau had hired thousands of new temporary employees, equipped each with a handheld GPS computer and sent them out to mark GPS coordinates for every residential front door in America.
Oddly, it was this same period that news was breaking of an international flu pandemic, suspected of being a weaponized strain of the virus never before seen, – and that Obama’s team still sees no need to close the US-Mexican border, despite the cross continental spread of a deadly illness now claiming American lives.
Now, if any one of these events happened alone, one might not get too excited. But when a string of such events happen all at once, one begins to question the string of freedom and life threatening coincidences…
I can’t resist the urge to question the authority and purpose behind such a BIG BROTHER initiative, when the official Census itself is not due to be taken until 2010…
No imagination is required to think up a whole laundry list of evil that could be done with a nationwide GPS grid of coordinate’s markers painted on every private home across the country. But I was having trouble thinking up one good reason for it, even one legitimate use that would justify what must be a very expensive undertaking.
According to one of the Census workers, who spoke with me on condition of anonymity, they must GPS mark the coordinates “within 40 ft of every front door” in America and they are supposed to complete that mission nation wide, within 90 days, by the end of July 2009.
The workers were not told why they were GPS marking every front door. But a supervisor is sent out to follow them door-to-door, to make certain that no door is left unmarked. Every door will be marked by one employee, and then checked by a follow-up supervisor.
So, I had to ask, why?
Why does the Obama administration need or want the latitude and longitude coordinates for every home in America? Why the rush to GPS paint every home in the next 90 days? Why must the marker be within 40 ft of every front door? For what possible purpose does the Fed need GPS coordinates for every home, and under what authority do they have the right? Census workers, whom I asked, had the same holy-crap look on their faces that I had by then…
ACORN signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States — currently believed to be more than 306 million people. But the count doesn’t take place until 2010… This is April 2009.
Obama’s interest in an ACORN controlled 2010 Census, for the purpose of redistricting to the advantage of Democrats before the 2010 mid-term elections, comes as NO shock from a regime known for their heavy handed Rules for Radicals political strategies. But what does this have to do with GPS marking every home in the country?
The 2% of Americans, who have served military duty at some point in life, are very familiar with the most common use of GPS target painting. The other 98% of Americans might want to pick up a book on the subject, such as The Precision Revolution: GPS and the Future of Aerial Warfare …
RightSoup.com has just about the only online report available on the matter, and they report, “Why does the government (and ACORN) need to have the GPS coordinates of your FRONT DOOR? Your house is probably on Google Maps already. But the front door? Sounds like a jackboot convenience to me. This is a developing story, and several reports of those who have already been visited by the GPS squad can be found in this forum thread.”
If you challenge Census Bureau employees about the GPS marking of your private residence, you will be handed a preprinted explanation referring you to Sec. 223, Title 13, U.S. Code, Chapter 7, Subtitle 2, which explains the penalties for refusing to provide names and statistics of occupants when asked for by a census taker. This only applies when they are taking a census, (which will not be taken until next year), and the penalty for refusing to answer questions for a census is up to a $500 fine.
However, since the actual Census is not due to be taken until 2010, nobody is asking for any information today. They are only GPS marking your front door today, and Sec. 223, Title 13, U.S. Code, Chapter 7, Subtitle 2 provides the Fed NO authority to GPS paint your front door.
Best I can tell, the Fed has NO authority whatsoever, to paint the front door of every private residence in America. Still, that is exactly what they are doing. Now, the trillion dollar question is, why?
A State of Emergency
From Wikipedia – The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (such as states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
In short, the statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard operating under federal authority, from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States.
As members of the military are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and the American people against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, a federal order to do the exact opposite, and take aim at American citizens, would be a clear violation of the US Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, unless…
US Military personnel are trained to follow orders. But they are also obligated to refuse any order deemed “unlawful.” In order to make such an order appear “lawful,” the federal government would first have to declare a national “state of emergency,” such as in the case of an international pandemic, which can be demonstrated to threaten the health and well-being of American citizens.
Following a state of emergency declaration, a federal order for Martial Law would be expected, to allegedly provide law enforcement and security for citizens. This type of scenario can be followed by a presidential order to quarantine, disarm and contain American citizens in the name of national security, all of it, having the appearance of being “lawful.”
Is this what is happening?
Connecting the Dots
Alone, individual events look concerning, but not conspiratorial. What about when you place the pieces of the puzzle together and take a look at the entire picture developing?
Under this “theory,” how does the GPS marking of every private residence in the nation fit into the picture?
I wish I knew… but I don’t!
What I do know is this… Coincidences of this number and magnitude don’t happen. They certainly do not happen all at the same time, within hours or days of each other, out of the wild blue tin-foil hat heaven…
I also know that people had better start asking the right people the right questions and demanding answers fast. Begin with asking the mainstream press why there has been no public notification of the federal governments GPS marking your front door?
Then, I suggest contacting your local Census Bureau office immediately, and demanding an explanation as well as advice as to what law gives them the right to GPS paint every front door in America?
I’d also recommend sending a copy of this column to your state and federal representative, demanding that they put a stop to it or explain why it’s necessary, and what law gives them the right?
Unfortunately, we live in a moment of history when real events are much stranger than nutty conspiracy theories. The people have every right to know what is happening. But unless you demand to know, nobody’s talking!
Bill Clinton sold US nuclear technology to Red China for a mere $300,000 in campaign contributions. The event landed Chinese bagman Johnny Chung in prison, but put Hillary Clinton in the US Senate, and now at the helm of the US State Department.
Highly secured government servers are hacked daily. Soon, hackers will be able to grab a nation wide GPS grid map, marking the front door of every home in America.
How much is a GPS grid of every American household worth to the enemies of America, both foreign and domestic? I’d estimate, PRICELESS!
There is a foul odor resonating from the current regime in Washington DC and most Americans can smell it. Can most Americans gather the strength to do something about it?
Next Page »