All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on March 30, 2009. Is this really the talking point Republicans want to use in their fight against climate change legislation? At a congressional hearing last week, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) argued that we could afford to keep increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, since dinosaurs got by just fine in a carbon-rich environment. “Today we have about 388 parts per million [of carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere,” Shimkus said. “I think in the age of the dinosaurs, when we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.” Never mind that I have trouble imagining a theological debate about the chemical makeup of the atmosphere. Why do Republicans keep using this line of reasoning? ( This isn’t the first time .) Do they really want our planet to return to an era of enormous lizards and 40-foot snakes ? Ah, but Shimkus does us the favor of explaining his logic. In a word, God: The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. A man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe that God’s word is infallible. Unchanging. Perfect. Great, let’s destroy our planet and our separation of church and state in one fell swoop. But back to the core issue: Has there been some sort of agreement among House Republicans that references to very bygone eras will somehow defeat cap-and-trade legislation? Remember that last week, another GOP congressman on Shimkus’ subcommittee, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), pointed to the Vikings as evidence that we can adapt just fine to global warming. And in case that argument somehow wasn’t working, Shimkus tried another tack, claiming that carbon dioxide is valuable “plant food” that we would be remiss to reduce. I suppose the arguments in favor of curbing global warming have been a bit human-centric … Watch Shimkus below:

Go here to see the original:
Best of 2009: GOP Still Arguing for a Return to Dinosaur Era

For New Year 2010, resolve to be a smarter consumer Augusta Free Press The gambler never sees a dime; the only person to reap any winnings is the scam artist. Investment opportunities – Don't let the promise of low risk and …

Read the original:
For New Year 2010, resolve to be a smarter consumer – Augusta Free Press

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on May 21, 2009. Bouncing around the InterWeb, one might get curious about what exactly mountaintop removal involves. And so one might do a Google on “mountaintop mining.” And one might click on the first link, which is an industry-sponsored site called mountaintopmining.com . And there one would read interesting statements claiming that blowing the tops off the nation’s oldest mountains is “essentially the same as road construction.” And one might also discover a curious link entitled “Religion and Mining.” And there within, one might find an anonymous 2002 letter to the editors of the Louisville Courier-Journal, which puts forth the biblical justification for destroying mountains. For example, Isaiah 40:4-5: Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill shall be made low; The rugged land shall be made a plain, the rough country, a broad valley. Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all mankind shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken. And Genesis 1:28-29: God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all living things that move on the earth.’ God also said ‘See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has a seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food. And Timothy 5:8: Now if anyone does not provide for his own relatives, and especially for his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. This would be funny if it weren’t a real thing.

Read the rest here:
Best of 2009: And God Said: Go Forth and Blow the Tops Off of Mountains

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on March 4, 2009. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s “Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry” convened this morning to consider Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) proposal for a sort of “truth and reconciliation” commission. The hearing was full of all the predictable, lofty statements from illustrious supporters about why a commission would further the American people’s understanding of our nation’s past and true values, and also demonstrate to the world our commitment to truth and justice — most of which I agree with. But what was most surprising was that the Senate Republicans and their witnesses, in the process of ripping apart the idea, made the strongest case I’ve heard yet for why the Department of Justice should prosecute former senior officials of the Bush administration. Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking committee Republican, after noting his previous support for judicial review of the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program, referred to the recent disclosures of Office of Legal Counsel memos as potentially supporting the case for prosecutions. “You’ve had some rather startling disclosures, with the publicity in recent days about unusual—to put it mildly—legal opinions” to justify broad executive actions, including homicide. “They’re all being exposed now,” he said, and noted that a forthcoming report from the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department will likely expose even more. They’re “starting to tread on what may disclose criminal conduct,” he said. Rather than going off “helter-skelter” and conducting a “fishing expedition,” said Specter, “it seems to me that we ought to follow a regular order here … If there’s reason to believe that these justice department officials have given approval for things that they know not to be lawful and sound, go after them.” The witnesses called to present the Republican opposition to Leahy’s proposal made the same point. David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations and now a partner at the law firm Baker & Hostetler, said a truth commission “is a profoundly bad idea, a dangerous idea, both for policy and for me as a lawyer for legal and constitutional reasons.” Objecting that Congress would be improperly delegating its oversight power, and that witnesses would be called out for criminal conduct without the right to defend themselves in a trial, he said: “this is to establish a body to engage in what in essence is a criminal investigation of former Bush administration officials,” and that “the subject matter areas, which such a commission would investigate – among them the interrogation and handling of captured enemy combatants and the gathering of electronic intelligence – are heavily regulated by comprehensive criminal statutes, and ensures that the commission’s activities would inevitably invade areas traditionally the responsibility of the Department of Justice.” Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University who also opposes Leahy’s idea, similarly insisted that in the United States, where we have a fully developed legal system, prosecutions — not truth commissions — are the appropriate course. A truth commission is something that countries like South Africa and Chile have had, not something we should do here, he said. “In those countries they had to have commissions because they couldn’t have prosecutions. Peace was really in doubt in those countries … they had to trade off prosecutions for peace. We’re not in that situation. If people think we need to have prosecutions, we should have prosecutions.” Proponents of the truth commission idea, meanwhile, while not ruling out the idea of prosecutions, saw a truth commission as serving a different, and broader, purpose. But it was surprising that, at a hearing cautiously called to discuss “a nonpartisan commission of inquiry,” we heard the strongest case yet for the prosecution of former Bush administration officials — being made by Republicans.

Read the original here:
Best of 2009: Republicans Make Case for Prosecuting Bush Officials

Police warn of roof repair scam The Daily Advertiser Within a few hours, the suspect cashes the check and spends a short time on the roof without making any repairs. Police said the suspect in this case … and more

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on Nov. 4, 2009. During the summer, when swine flu was not yet a widespread reality in the United States, giant retailer Wal-Mart made the news for being in talks with the government about possibly distributing the swine flu vaccine through its extensive network of stores. But now the swine flu has Wal-Mart under scrutiny for a very different reason: Accusations that the retailer is leaving employees infected with swine flu little choice but to come to work, due to its punitive sick leave policies. Citing a report by the National Labor Committee , the Institute for Southern Studies’ argues on its blog Facing South that Wal-Mart is essentially contributing to the spread of swine flu by making it financially prohibitive for employees to miss work when they fall ill. Employees of the Arkansas-based retail giant — even its food handlers — feel they have no choice but to work when they’re sick. That’s because the company gives workers demerits and deducts pay for staying home when they’re sick or caring for sick children. It gets worse: The situation is particularly difficult for Wal-Mart workers who are single parents. The NLC reports on an instance in which an employee got a call from her four-year-old’s preschool telling her to pick up the child, who had a fever of 103 degrees F. Despite the fact that the employee had already worked for four hours that day, she got a demerit point for leaving and lost her wages for the rest of the day. The report says: “Parents have no choice but to load their children up with Motrin and Dimetap to mask their symptoms so they can go to school.” Which, of course, leads to a vicious circle of other children at school becoming sick, and spreading it in their families. Not to mention the misery of a sick child facing a full day of school. What’s particularly interesting is that Wal-Mart includes on its Website some information about swine flu, including frequently asked questions. Here’s the answer to “What should I do if I get sick?” Stay away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick. Staying at home means that you should not leave your home except to seek medical care. This means avoiding normal activities, including work, school, travel, shopping, social events and public gatherings. Unless you work at Wal-Mart. Then, you’d better make it in for your shift if you don’t want your pay docked or possibly lose your job. From Facing South: Wal-Mart has a demerit system that punishes workers who cannot come to work due to illness. Employees who miss a day due to sickness receive a one-point demerit and lose eight hours of wages. Employees with more than three absences a six-month period face discipline, and a fifth absence — even for a sick day — will result in what the company calls “active coaching” by management. A sixth absence leads to what Wal-Mart calls “Decision Day,” when a worker can be either terminated or put on a year-long trial period during which time he or she can be fired for any infraction and cannot be promoted. The swine flu sometimes can cause people to miss an entire week or more of work. At Wal-Mart, that could get you fired. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what the Center for Disease Control was hoping for this flu season, as it tries to contain a life-threatening virus. Wal-Mart’s labor policies have long been contentious, but this one could actually create a public safety issue. If these allegations are true, it may be time for public health officials to step in somehow, perhaps with fines for the retailer for keeping flu-stricken employees on the job. And let’s not just pick on Wal-Mart; it’s very possible that other low-wage retailers and business are doing the same thing. Maybe the best option in the absence of any government action is for customers to walk away. Is a bargain really worth it if employees are forced to work while sick with the flu — and potentially help to spread an unusually dangerous virus?

See more here:
Best of 2009: Stay Home if You Have Swine Flu, Unless You Work at Wal-Mart

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on May 26, 2009. One of the things that most infuriates conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin and Stuart Taylor about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is that in delivering a 2002 speech at UC-Berkeley, the judge said that “our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions” and that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” If, deprived of their context, these statements sound controversial, in the context of her lecture, titled “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” they made perfect sense. Sotomayor’s view that judges are influenced by their background and experiences is backed up by studies that show that women judges, for example, tend to rule in a way that’s more sympathetic to plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases than male judges do — probably because, having experienced discrimination themselves as they struggled to advance in a male-dominated profession, they’re more attuned to its signs. A recent study by political scientists and law professors Christina Boyd, Lee Epstein and Andrew Martin, for example, found that “female judges are approximately 10 percent more likely to rule in favor of the party bringing the discrimination claim,” as two of the authors wrote recently in The Washington Post . What’s more, they wrote, “[w]e also found that the presence of a female judge causes male judges to vote differently. When male and female judges serve together to decide a sex discrimination case, the male judges are nearly 15 percent more likely to rule in favor of the party alleging discrimination than when they sit with male judges only.” Sotomayor, in her 2002 lecture, similarly noted that “The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases.” “As recognized by legal scholars,” she continued, “whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.” While Sotomayor’s comments, taken out of context, provide fodder for her right-wing critics, it’s worth noting that the judge has the evidence on her side.

Originally posted here:
Best of 2009: Sotomayor’s ‘Controversial’ Comments Backed Up By Academic Research

Following up on my earlier post on the FBI’s longstanding problems with putting terror suspects on its terror watchlist, I just got off the phone with FBI spokesman William Carter, who clarified a few things. Although Carter couldn’t talk specifically about the case of the failed Northwest Airlines Flight 253 bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, he explained that the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, is an inter-agency center headed by the CIA. However, it includes members of the FBI. And it’s the NCTC that’s responsible for nominating someone to the terror watchlist. So the FBI should have at least known about the concerns about Abdulmutallab. That doesn’t answer why Abdulmutallab wasn’t on the terrorism watchlist, but the rest of Carter’s explanation might. Although Carter couldn’t tell me anything about this case, he strongly suggested that just because someone’s father warns the U.S. embassy that his son is a radicalized Muslim who’s hanging around with terrorists in Yemen and sending scary text-messages, that doesn’t necessarily land him on any watchlists.  Not even the low-level watchlist, called the Selectee list (as opposed to the No-Fly list) , Carter explained — the one where security officials will simply question or search a person more than usual before letting him on the plane. “They have to fit a certain criteria,” said Carter. “A reasonable suspicion that they will be involved in terrorist activity. The fact that a person has been radicalized or espoused radical views,”that’s exercising your constitutional rights. You have the right to not agree with the United States. You have the right to hate the United States. It’s only when they’ve committed an act of terrorism” that it becomes a crime. He continued: “Reasonable suspicion requires an articulable fact when, taken with rational inferences” leads to the conclusion that the individual is “engaged in terrorist activity” or “preparing for terrorism.” Apparently, the NCTC didn’t think that the specific warnings about radicalization and terrorist training from the suspect’s own father warranted asking him questions or searching him or his belongings before allowing him to board a plane for the United States.

Continued here:
FBI: We Should Have Known About Abdulmutallab, but Father’s Warning Wasn’t Enough to Search Him

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on Nov. 8, 2009. As former Vice President Dick Cheney and some Republican lawmakers continue to debate whether torture works and was a legitimate interrogation technique during the Bush administration, it’s almost jaw-dropping to read some of the memos that were written by the real experts on interrogation techniques in the U.S. government, warning the Defense Department all the way back in 2002 that the sorts of abusive techniques they were considering, and in some cases already using, were not only bound to fail, but were unequivocally illegal. One memo, drafted in November 2002 by personnel from the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit — the unit best trained to understand human behavior and how to interpret and manipulate criminal suspects — was among the documents released by the government on Friday as part of the ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The memo was sent to the Commanding General and Jt. Task Force 170 — the unit of the Southern Command in charge of detaining and interrogating detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The BAU, explained elsewhere in documents released on Friday, is “comprised of Supervisory Special Agents with an average of 18 years of experience in criminal and counterintelligence investigations.” The memo lays out clearly and simply what the interrogation experts at the FBI knew about interrogations of terror suspects, what would or would not work on them, and what sort of conduct was illegal. And it reads much like the sorts of arguments we’re now hearing from the America Civil Liberties Union and other civil and human rights organizations arguing that senior defense department officials and lawyers who approved abusive techniques ought to be criminally investigated. “Central to the gathering of reliable, admissible evidence is the manner in which it is obtained,” the authors write to the General. “Interrogation techniques used by the DHS [Defense Human Intelligence Services, part of DoD] are designed specifically for short term use in combat environments where the immediate retrieval of tactical intelligence is critical. Many of DHS’s methods are considered coercive by Federal Law Enforcement and [Uniform Code of Military Justice] standards. Not only this, but reports from those knowledgeable about the use of these coercive techniques are highly skeptical as to their effectiveness and reliability.” Most of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay had already been interviewed repeatedly overseas by the DHS, so the FBI recommended a different approach be taken at Guantanamo. The FBI favors the use of less coercive techniques — ones carefully designed for long-term use in which rapport-building skills are carefully combined with a purposeful and incremental manipulation of a detainee’s environment and perceptions. The BAU staff explain: FBI/CITF agents are well trained, highly experienced and very successful in overcoming suspect resistance in order to obtain valuable information in complex criminal cases, including the investigations of terrorist bombings in East Africa and the USS Cole, etc. FBI/CRT interview strategies are most effective when tailored specifically to suit a suspect’s or detainee’s needs or vulnerabilities. Contrary to popular belief, these vulnerabilities are more likely to reveal themselves through the employment of individually designed and sustained interview strategies rather than through the haphazard use of prescriptive, time-driven approaches. The FBI/CITF strongly believes that the continued use of diametrically opposed interrogation strategies in GTMO will only weaken our efforts to obtain valuable information. The memo goes on to list the interrogation techniques being used, and then to list which ones are “not permitted by the U.S. Constitution.” Those include: the use of stress positions for more than four hours; hooding; 20-hour interrogation segments; stripping a detainee of all clothing; and exploiting individual phobias, such as fear of dogs, to induce stress. They also include the use of scenarios designed to convince a detainee that death or severe pain is imminent for him or his family; waterboarding (here called “use of wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning”); and exposure to cold weather or water. All of those techniques, we now know, continued to be used by the Defense Department. The FBI also warned that the use of such techniques would make any evidence derived inadmissible in federal court and if admissible in a military commission, likely to be given “little or no weight.” The FBI drafters of the memo further explained that most of those techniques, particularly the last four, would also violate the U.S. anti-torture statute. It recommended that they not be used. We know that the Pentagon and CIA went ahead and used them anyway. Instead of relying on their top experts in the FBI, they relied on a plan developed by a couple of private psychologists with no experience whatsoever in interrogating terror suspects and who cribbed much of their plan from a study of Chinese Communist techniques used to obtain false confessions from American prisoners during the Korean war. Senior U.S. officials then sought legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel that would tell them that these techniques, contrary to the FBI’s opinions, were not illegal. Conveniently, those opinions did cast the techniques described in a completely different light. The most recently released memos have not gotten much attention, as torture fatigue sets in and the Bush torture program becomes old news. But the FBI memo is important because it adds to the growing body of evidence that senior defense department and CIA officials deliberately ignored the opinions of the best trained and most experienced people in the government about interrogations that abusive interrogations would not work and were not legal. Add that to the rest of the evidence that senior Bush administration officials did not act in good faith in relying on the Office of Legal Counsel memos that justified the techniques the Defense Department and CIA were using, and this latest declassified memo adds weight to the argument that something fishy was going on at the highest ranks of government that demands further investigation. This latest memo also sheds light on why some in the Defense Department and some Republicans are now so eager to try Guantanamo detainees in military commissions rather than in Article III federal courts. They know that the evidence extracted from the prisoners under the “enhanced” methods Cheney is still defending doesn’t stand a chance in front of an independent U.S. federal court judge. PRINT

Read the rest here:
Best of 2009: FBI Interrogators Argued in 2002 That Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Were Illegal and Ineffective

Aaron Blake catches State Sen. Laura Kelly, a top Democratic recruit against Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), pulling out of the race. Kelly joins several other recent drop-outs, including businessman Jack McDonald, a well-funded challenger to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) who announced last week that he wouldn’t run. The others are Ohio state Rep. Todd Book, who was running against Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio); former Tennessee state commerce and insurance commissioner Paula Flowers, who was running for Rep. Zach Wamp’s (R-Tenn.) seat; and Solana Beach City Councilman Dave Roberts, who was running against Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.). The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee bragged about these recruits when they got in their respective races, so there’s no spinning the bad news. However, while Democrats won the Jenkins seat in a 2006 upset (before losing it last year), none of these seats were good Democratic targets in 2010. The Cook Political Report rated Jenkins’s seat “R+9,” meaning Republicans had an out-of-the-gate 9-point advantage there. McCaul’s Texas seat is R+10. Schmidt’s seat is R+13, as is Wamp’s seat. Only the Bilbray seat, R+3, is the kind of district that flips in non-wave elections, and Democrats still have credible candidates in the field; Roberts dropped out, he claimed, because he successfully (and to his surprise) won custody of several foster children. Is the lack of fire from red-district Democratic challengers a bad omen for the party in 2010? Absolutely. Does it hurt their chances of holding the House? Not really.

Originally posted here:
A Bad Time to Be a Democratic Challenger

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on Jan. 21, 2009. Elana Schor at Talking Points Memo has a great inauguration interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). She asked him about TWI’s story last week revealing that homeowners have to sign away their rights to sue lenders, if they want to get a loan modification under Fannie and Freddie’s streamlined loan modification program. Frank said he had no idea the waivers were being required, and vowed to get rid of them — immediately. Here’s the exchange: TPM: The next question goes to mortgages, to shift a little bit. Countrywide executives testified before your committee last summer that they were requiring borrowers who had loan modifications to sign away part of their legal rights … a recent investigation found that Fannie and Freddie now make the same waiver requests of folks who are getting their loans modified. Were you aware of that? Do you think that’s a troubling trend? FRANK: Yes, uh, it’s a very troubling trend. We were not aware of it. As a matter of fact, by the time that question was posed, Countrywide had been bought by Bank of America, and Bank of America has ended that practice. … I have friends who said ‘well, Bank of America’s too big, shouldn’t we stop them from buying Countrywide?’ … [M]y answer was, I would have been happy if Syria bought Countrywide, because it was one of the most irresponsible institutions out there. Bank of America has done a very good job … I did not know until you just told me that Fannie and Freddie were doing that and I can pretty much guarantee you that we will have put an end to that within a few days. I’ll keep you posted on what happens with the waivers.

Read this article:
Best of 2009: Frank Vows to Put an End to Fannie and Freddie Waivers

I raised that question on Monday, talking with conservative health experts who think Republicans are fooling themselves if they think they’ll be able to roll back a successful health care bill. Politico asked more Republican candidates about the issue, and found more pessimism. “We have to repeal very substantial parts of it, and that’s not going to be easy,” said Pennsylvania Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey. “I’m not sitting here predicting that a president who signs this into law in 2010 is likely to sign a repeal in 2011.” The repeal-or-bust strategy is designed to give GOP candidates a powerful talking point in the coming midterm elections by highlighting what some polls indicate is a deeply unpopular proposal among the GOP base and independent voters. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn and several House members have promised to introduce legislation repealing the law if it resembles the health care bill that passed the Senate last week. “They can push for repeal — they’re just not going to get it,” said Tom Davis, former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “I think there are probably better targets for Republicans.” A slightly more viable outlet for opposition is the quest by 13 GOP attorneys general to convince Democrats that a constitutional challenge in on the horizon.

More:
Is the ‘Repeal Health Care Reform’ Movement Doomed?

While the State Department is fending off questions about why it didn’t revoke Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s visa and points fingers at the National Counterterrorism Center, it’s worth noting that the FBI last year was told, following an in-depth audit by its inspector general , that it had a big problem with failing to place terror suspects on the NCTC’s terror watchlists. As Spencer has pointed out, the State Department says it passed along the warning about Abdulmutallab from his father to the rest of the government through an interagency process. That does not appear to have alerted the FBI, which itself seems odd. But even if it had, there’s no guarantee that would have landed Abdulmutallab on the terrorism watchlist — also called the “no-fly list.” As the 2008 FBI audit released last May explained, the FBI’s practices for nominating people to the terror watchlist were a mess. Although “FBI policy allows for the nomination of known or suspected international terrorists for whom the FBI does not have a terrorism investigation,” the controls over those nominations were “weak or nonexistent,” the report concluded. The report further found that in 15 percent of cases, terror suspects who should have been nominated for the terror watchlist were not — including one suspect who was under investigation for four years. When Congress takes up the matter next month, it should consider why the FBI wasn’t informed about a Nigerian Muslim flying to the United States after his own father warned he was an Islamic extremist presenting a safety risk — and whether the FBI and the rest of the government has cleaned up its own procedures enough to flag a suspect like this in the future.

Read the original here:
2008 FBI Audit Flagged Failure to Place Terror Suspects on Watchlist

The former Republican House Majority Leader, who left Congress in 2003, doesn’t take credit for the “Tea Party” movement. At every opportunity, Armey pays tribute to groups such as the Tea Party Patriots, run on the free time of workaday conservative activists, and he blanches when liberals accuse his organization FreedomWorks — where Armey makes a reported $250,000 per year as a consultant — of hatching their protests. Still, Armey’s second life as a grassroots hero has shed light on the anger modern conservatives have for both parties. Armey is credible because he staged a coup in 1997 against Newt Gingrich (a conservative hero whose star dimmed considerably after he endorsed Dede Scozzafava in NY-23’s special election), and because he quit Congress before — in the minds of Tea Partiers — the GOP majority went off the rails. Armey doesn’t even like the GOP that much; at a November premiere of a Tea Party documentary, he told TWI that the party was only the “best outlet” for free-market conservatives. Next — 5. Eric Cantor

Read more:
6. Dick Armey

Republicans began the year in worse shape than they’d been in any time since the 1970s. Conservatives and libertarians, the party’s traditional base, were angry and alienated, swearing that the mistakes of George W. Bush’s failed presidency would never be repeated. By the end of 2009, there had been a massive power shift from the leadership of the movement to its activists, from Washington to places like Watertown, N.Y., and Andrew Breitbart’s Los Angeles basement office. Click here to begin slideshow. Stop back tomorrow for “Ten Conservatives to Watch in 2010.”

Visit link:
The Best and the Rightest

It’s tough for the minority party to pass legislation. The first time the GOP tried to prohibit ACORN from federal funding, the measure failed on a party-line vote. Then twentysomething conservative activists O’Keefe and Giles took the stage. The two posed as a pimp and a prostitute, entered an ACORN office and secretly taped ACORN employees offering advice. It didn’t matter that the videos were edited to look especially embarrassing (O’Keefe was filmed wearing a ridiculous pimp costume that he didn’t wear into the interviews). Guided by Breitbart, who launched his Big Government website with the tapes, the footage exploded in the conservative media and made ACORN so toxic that most Democrats in Congress later voted to defund it. It was a watershed moment for conservatives who found they could get Congress to act on a “scandal” even if the traditional mainstream media weren’t involved. Next — 2. Glenn Beck

Continued here:
3. Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles

Two years ago, many Republicans couldn’t stand him. The longtime congressman from Texas made his quixotic presidential campaign all about the Constitution and the Federal Reserve, seemingly to the exclusion of other issues, and for his trouble he was excluded from some of the debates. Reporters, hungry for soundbites and attack lines, and interested more in who would win the nomination than what the candidates thought, found him tiresome — at the very first GOP debate in 2007 , Chris Matthews muttered “Oh, God” when Paul started talking about “original intent.” He raised $35 million and won 1.2 million primary and caucus votes , but when 2008 ended, his slogan sounded extreme. The “Ron Paul Revolution”? What did that word have to do with modern American politics? But at the close of 2009, Paul seems less like an outsider and more like a pioneer. For the first time in his congressional career, he got every Republican colleague on board with a piece of legislation: HR 1207, an attempt to “audit” the Federal Reserve’s activity. His rhetoric and some of his imagery (like Revolutionary War re-enactment) have been copied wholesale by the Tea Party movement. The beliefs held by Paul that were once considered out of the mainstream — a collapsing dollar, obsession with the Fed, an encroaching North American Union, gold as the only safe investment — are now de regueur for Republican candidates. What presidential loser has had more of an impact on the party that rejected him? Click here to replay slideshow.

See the original post here:
1. Ron Paul

'Nigerian Scam ' Targets Unwary Fort Smith Times Record He deposited all of the checks, but his credit union processed only one because it found the check to be counterfeit, the report states. …

Originally posted here:
‘Nigerian Scam’ Targets Unwary – Fort Smith Times Record

Resolve to ward off scams in 2010, and beyond Cameron Herald Everyone is anxious to share advice on investment opportunities with people they love. There seems to be security in having others join you in a venture you …

Link:
Resolve to ward off scams in 2010, and beyond – Cameron Herald

Justin Elliott notices that TheConservatives.com , the Web hub slowly rolled out over 2009 by The Washington Times, appears to be dead . I’ve asked an editor of the Website what the status is, but a cloud hung over the site soon after it officially launched. Weeks after John Solomon pitched the site at the Heritage Foundation, promising another Web hub for progressives, he was forced out of the paper.

View post:
A Bad Year to Launch a New Washington Times Digital Project

In an appearance on “Democracy Now!” yesterday morning to discuss Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab , I made the point that Abdulmutallab’s ability to board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 demonstrates a policy failure more than an intelligence failure. By that I meant that the threat information acquired on Abdulmutallab was insufficient to ground him, based on the bureaucracy’s process for placing someone on the no-fly list . And for seemingly good reason: the input on him leading to the conclusion that he was dangerous was his father’s Nov. 19 appeal to officials at the U.S. embassy in Abuja. As investigation into the case continues, there’s some new information that complicates that picture. First, the CIA, after hearing his father’s concern, compiled a profile of Abdulmutallab consisting of non-specific information, but apparently declined to share it with the National Counterterrorism Center . And the National Security Agency picked up communications from al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate indicating that the group was looking to use a “Nigerian” in an unspecified terrorist attack, according to The New York Times . That also didn’t go to the NCTC. New information may surface. But based on this, is it really fair to point the finger at the intelligence community here? Abdulmutallab’s father told embassy officials in Abuja that he didn’t know where his son was, but might be in Yemen. The CIA had that information. NSA has information that a Nigerian might be used for an attack sponsored by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. If all of this had gone into the NCTC, would someone have put two and two together — setting off the process for pulling Abdulmutallab’s visa or putting him on the no-fly? Maybe. And the rationale for the all-source, multi-agency NCTC is all about intelligence sharing. But remember: the inputs are that the guy’s dad says he’s dangerous; he’s Nigerian; he might be in Yemen; and al-Qaeda in Yemen may be looking to use a Nigerian in a forthcoming attack. Is that really enough? The answer to that question most certainly requires a policy decision, not an intelligence decision. The intelligence community is drinking from a fire hose of data, a lot of it much more specific than what was acquired on Abdulmutallab. If policymakers decide that these thin reeds will be the standard for stopping someone from entering the United States, then they need to change the process to enshrine that in the no-fly system. But it will make it much harder for people who aren’t threatening to enter, a move that will ripple out to effect diplomacy, security relationships (good luck entering the U.S. for a military-to-military contact program if, say, you’re a member of the Sunni Awakening in Iraq, since you had contacts with known extremists), international business and trade, and so on. Are we prepared for that? Similarly, there’s a reasonable issue to investigate about intelligence-sharing processes even in the pre-specific-threat level. But remember: that just increases the firehose of data NCTC must process. Information is supposed to filter up to NCTC in strength and specificity from the component intelligence agencies so that NCTC isn’t overwhelmed. If we want to say that there should be a lower standard for sharing with NCTC, fine. But then either NCTC needs to be given more resources, or we risk missing the next Abdulmutallab because NCTC’s analysts will be drowning in nonspecific data and trying to rope it to flotillas of additional information. It’s reasonable to ask, however, what the CIA did post-Nov. 19 to investigate Abdulmutallab specifically. But it’s also important to remember that barely a month passed between his father’s warning and Flight 253. None of this is to excuse any complacency. It’s to provide context for evaluating whatever complacency occurred.

Follow this link:
Is This Really an Intelligence Failure? Real Talk on Abdulmutallab

NJ Dept. of Law nets $148 million in 2008 Jackson NJ Online ■The filing of a suit against Merrill Lynch, charging that it sold the Division of Investment $300 million in preferred stock based on misleading …

Read the original post:
NJ Dept. of Law nets $148 million in 2008 – Jackson NJ Online

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on Feb. 4, 2009. The Wall Street Journal attempts to add another chapter to the long-running debate over women seeking to balance raising children with careers. In a story today, the Journal reports that new data shows a reversal of a long-term trend, with younger women now having children at earlier ages and delaying careers. I’d put this piece away in the circular file. First, the story – like so many others – somehow assumes that either women procreate on their own or  make all the decisions about childbearing in their relationships. One would glean from the Journal piece that men are apparently absent from these major life decisions. They are never actually mentioned by name in the story, so we can only assume that men never choose to delay building a family for their careers. They want to start popping out dozens of kids from the get-go, it seems, but career-obsessed women stand in the way. I’m sure you know lots of people in relationships just like that. From the Journal: For the first time since government records have been kept, the average age at which women have their first babies posted a decline — according to newly released data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Mothers’ mean age at their first childbirth fell to 25.0 years in 2006, the most recent figures available, from 25.2 in 2005. Women ages 20 to 24 led the shift, with a 5% increase in the rate of first births. A one-year reversal doesn’t make a trend, of course. But the study lends weight to anecdotal evidence that young women are tuning in more closely to their biological clocks. “It’s the first time it’s ever gone down, and certainly that’s noteworthy,” says Brady Hamilton, co-author of the study. There’s that anecdotal evidence again. The story notes, correctly, that a one-year reversal doesn’t make a trend, then writes a trend story about it anyway. Here’s more of the “evidence”: Other factors are at work too, including rising numbers of Hispanics, who tend to start families sooner, says Steven Martin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland. A 4% rise in the rate of first births to older teens, ages 15 to 19, is also playing a role. And the sheer size of the baby boomlet generation, now entering the child-bearing years, may be skewing new mothers’ mean age lower. So basically, we don’t know what the decrease really means. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that, in general, I don’t find a slight rise in older teens having children any kind of positive trend – although I guess you could say those young women certainly aren’t putting their careers first! Never letting the facts get in the way of a good story, the Journal goes on to cite experts who say the numbers – even if we don’t know what they mean – really do show a new trend, and then pulls out a few examples of younger women saying they didn’t want to put off having kids for their careers. Their husbands and boyfriends are never interviewed or quoted talking about their preferences, or whether the entire trend of women delaying childbirth for their careers had anything to do with men choosing to delay starting a family in favor of their careers. Women may face pay inequalities and other discrimination, but apparently they rule the roost in all things having to do with childbirth and careers, and men are mere bystanders. And when it comes to the Journal, even if we’re not really sure what women are doing and why, we’re going to follow the time-honored journalistic tradition of fake trend stories about women and work and just say what we’d like to believe — and then hope that someday, maybe, it comes true.

Originally posted here:
Best of 2009: Another Fake Trend Story on Women, Childbirth and Careers

Madoff Victim Fights Her Way Back Wall Street Journal Account holders like Langford had no idea that Madoff, the perpetrator of the most staggering financial scam ever, controlled their money. … and more

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on Nov. 12, 2009. Not the blue states. There are roughly 46 million people living in America without health insurance coverage, representing about 15 percent of the nation’s population, according to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau. But they aren’t distributed evenly around the country. In Texas, for example, the uninsured rate in 2008 was the highest in the nation at 24.1 percent, while just 4.1 percent of Massachusetts residents lacked health coverage, representing the country’s lowest rate, the Census data revealed. There’s nothing new or unusual about these distinctions. States have their own laws, and some have simply put greater emphasis on getting health coverage for residents. What’s interesting in the context of the insurance reforms working their way through Congress is how the highest uninsured rates are largely concentrated in the South and the Mountain West, where the lawmakers tend to be more conservative — and more likely to oppose the Democrats’ health reform plans. This Census Bureau map tells the tale (click to enlarge): The irony, of course, is that the same people who stand to benefit most from making insurance more affordable and accessible are also most likely to be represented by Republican lawmakers who are fighting tooth and nail to kill the reform proposals. Hannah Dreier contributed research to this article.

Originally posted here:
Best of 2009: Who Benefits Most From Health Insurance Reform?

KYW1060.com Snail Mail Scam Artists Still Sending Out Fake Checks KYW1060.com A CBS Radio engineer here got a legitimate-looking check for almost $4000 in the mail a few weeks ago. A letter with it said he'd won an international …

Read more here:
Snail Mail Scam Artists Still Sending Out Fake Checks – KYW1060.com

Carter resigned this fall as Assistant Secretary for Detainee Affairs at the Pentagon. Carter provided the stock answer that he was leaving for “personal and family reasons” at the time, but speculation abounds that the sensitive issue of transferring Guantanamo Bay detainees had driven a wedge between Carter and the administration. Next — 7. Gregory Craig

Read the original post:
8. Phillip Carter

Like Carter, Craig stepped down this year from a position that put him in charge of Guantanamo-related decisions. Craig resigned as White House Counsel this fall despite repeated denials that he would be leaving the administration. Craig reportedly faced mounting criticism for his handling of Guantanamo and other potentially damaging issues for the administration. Next — 6. Mel Martinez

View post:
7. Gregory Craig

Sen. Martinez’s (R-Fla.) political future looked dim in December 2008 when he announced he would not seek re-election in 2010. Things had been rocky for the senator for several years. In 2006, he was elected chair of the Republican National Committee, but less than a year into his tenure, Martinez was pressured to resign from the post after repeated clashes with social conservatives over immigration policy. Martinez was expected to face a difficult reelection in 2010, which outsiders speculated contributed to his decision to retire. But Martinez didn’t wait until January to leave town. On Aug. 7, 2009, late on a Friday, Martinez announced his he would resign instead of retire, leaving Republicans to scramble to find a mid-session replacement. Next — 5. Judd Gregg

Follow this link:
6. Mel Martinez

Another year is behind us, so what better way to reflect than to take a look back at TWI’s best, most popular, cleverest and head-smackingest blog posts of 2009? All day, we’ll be re-running our favorites. Throughout the year on The Independent Streak, we followed the nation’s biggest stories, including: the inauguration of a new president, the economic and foreclosure crises, tea parties, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, birthers, the remaking of the Republican Party (such as it was), the debates over torture, climate change and health care reform, and countless others. In retrospect, it was a pretty wild time. Let’s hope 2010 is, if nothing else, no less interesting. Enjoy!

Link:
TWI Looks Back at 2009: The Year in Blog

Popular Searches

• twi group scam
• twi scam

Republican Scozzafava was the clear front-runner in the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District — until Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman picked up endorsements from key Republicans and Tea Party leaders. Frustrated at the way the race — and particularly its funding — had become nationalized, she dropped out just three days before the election and endorsed her Democratic opponent, who prevailed on Nov. 3. Next — 1. Sarah Palin

Read the original post:
2. Dede Scozzafava

Sen. Specter (D-Pa.) made the bold decision to say goodbye to the Republican Party in 2009. Specter announced on April 28 that he would change his party affiliation. His move helped Democrats secure a crucial filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Though Specter’s switch meant he could avoid a difficult GOP primary in 2010, he now faces both a challenge from the left and a host of voters who are giving him less-than-stellar approval ratings. Next — 3. Van Jones

Go here to see the original:
4. Arlen Specter

Jones, Special Advisor to the White House for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, faced mounting pressure this year to resign after becoming a lightning rod for conservatives . Investigations into Jones’ past revealed he once signed a petition alleging government complicity in the 9/11 terror attacks, and he was lambasted for calling Republicans “assholes” for not supporting the administration. Jones resigned in September, blaming what he described as a “vicious smear campaign.” Next — 2. Dede Scozzafava

Read the original:
3. Van Jones

Madoff victim fights her way back MarketWatch Account holders like Langford had no idea that Madoff, the perpetrator of the most staggering financial scam ever, controlled their money. … Madoff investment basic lessons Myiris.com all 4 news articles

Sun Prairie Man Avoids Craigslist Scam KFBB NewsChannel 5 Sure enough, yesterday he received a check for $3600. All he had to do was mail $2000 of it to a woman in North Carolina. “I was supposed to Western Union …

Originally posted here:
Sun Prairie Man Avoids Craigslist Scam – KFBB NewsChannel 5

Repair scam warning Moultrie Observer The woman, who lives on Hopewell Church Road, wrote an $800 check Tuesday to a man for paving her driveway, a job that was basically a rip-off, …

Read more here:
Repair scam warning – Moultrie Observer

State Police warn of scam letters Bennington Banner BENNINGTON — Police are warning the public to be cautious of any mail offering money or prizes after a possible check scam was reported to police. …

Read the original here:
State Police warn of scam letters – Bennington Banner

Pletschet: More 2010 investing resolutions to live by San Jose Mercury News Beware of scams : If the turmoil of the last decade taught just one thing, it's to beware of investment scams and scam artists, particularly operators of … and more

BBC News UK fraudsters target European music fans BBC News UK fraudsters running scam websites are turning their attentions to European music fans, an expert has warned. … and more

Small business, beware of health care scams Clark Fork Chronicle She encourages everyone to check with her office before buying a new policy to see if the company and agent are licensed correctly. …

Go here to see the original:
Small business, beware of health care scams – Clark Fork Chronicle

Hospice scam : Phony Web site seeks personal information Longview Daily News Anyone with information about the scam is asked to call Marykay Morelli at hospice, (360) 414-5409. n Never divulge personal information over the Internet …

See the rest here:
Hospice scam: Phony Web site seeks personal information – Longview Daily News

Times Square buildings evacuated as cops check van but no threat found New York Post their “See Something, Say Something” hotline ( scam ). Guess how many of those 2000 calls proved to be a 100% waste of time. This nonsense is ALL Public … and more

Back in October I reported on some of the Tea Party groups’ annoyance with Our Country Deserves Better and its Tea Party Express project, a flashy effort that some original Tea Party organizers viewed as a shell game for Republican consultants. Talking Points Memo followed up on that with a look at the group’s payouts to consultants. Then, the TPE’s Joe Weirzbicki responded to Robert Stacy McCain by arguing that the “vast majority of that money was to reimburse Russo Marsh + Associates for the efforts where we fronted the money in our capacity as the organizers of the Tea Party Express.” Regardless, TPE remains a deeply controversial project for some Tea Party organizers. Robin Stublin, an original Tea Party organizer who has quit Tea Party Patriots in order to keep that group out of this fight, is going straight after TPE, pointing out that its expenses on food and consultant fees are far out of whack with the needs of a real grassroots group. One outrage that he pointed out to me and to Stephanie Mencimer was “$1,597.29 over the summer for a meal for six at a tony Sacramento Chops restaurant.” Stublin is working hard to get out the message about TPE’s buckraking; he even criticized Deborah Johns, a “marine mom” who has presented herself as a sort of pro-war answer to Cindy Sheehan, with a son who ( contrary to Fox News ) is still alive. “I honor, respect, and appreciate every person who’s served in armed forces,” said Stublin. “But if I’m a parent and I take money like this, I think I dishonor that sacrifice.”

Follow this link:
The $1,597.29 Tea Party Dinner

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), chairman of an airline safety panel, will hold hearings early next year to examine the holes in airport screening that allowed a 23-year-old Nigerian to smuggle plastic explosives onto a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day. “We have to fully investigate this incident to find accountability for the breakdown in security procedures,” Dorgan said in a statement issued today. It appears to me that there were serious failures in sharing information among intelligence and other agencies that allowed this alleged terrorist to board an international flight to the United States. Aside from the reports that the father of the alleged terrorist alerted our intelligence officials about his son, and that fact that his son was on a watch list, an alert should have been raised due simply to his purchase of an airline ticket with cash and his lack of luggage. We need to find out what is working and what is failing in our intelligence sharing. Dorgan said that hearings on the security breach — as well as those tackling broader transportation security issues — will be scheduled “in the coming weeks.” The North Dakota Democrat also chastised Republicans for using the incident for political purposes, urging the attackers to ”knock it off.” “Our country deserves better than to have people try to use a terrorist attack for political gain,” Dorgan said.

More here:
Coming Soon: Senate Hearings on Flight 253

TWI’s Spencer Ackerman interviews an engineering student in Tehran on recent developments in the country.

See original here:
Iranian Dissident: ‘Please Help Us Make Our Democracy’

Woman loses a lot of money in scam St. Peter Herald PETER — An investigation continues into a report of a check cashing scam that proved costly to a St. Peter woman right before the holidays. …

Continued here:
Woman loses a lot of money in scam – St. Peter Herald

Immigration remained a divisive political issue in 2009, although it largely simmered on the sidelines as Congress and the president focused their legislative efforts on other priorities. A comprehensive immigration reform bill wasn’t even introduced in Congress until mid-December. Still, the new administration stepped up the enforcement of immigration laws, laying the groundwork for 2010 proposals for broader reform, including opportunities for legalization of some undocumented immigrants. These five individuals had the greatest influence the immigration debate in 2009. Click here to begin slideshow.

Follow this link:
The Gatekeepers

Popular Searches

• are the gatekeepers a scam
• gatekeepers scam?

The publicity-hungry sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., repeatedly stole headlines this year. Dubbing himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” Arpaio starred in a Fox reality show called “Smile… You’re Under Arrest!” The role was fitting for Arpaio, who spent 2009 publicizing his Latino neighborhood raids where deputies arrested thousands of illegal immigrants for non-violent crimes, dressed them in pink underwear and housed them in sweltering “tent cities.” But Arpaio actually helped focus public attention on the problems of the 287(g) program, which gives local sheriffs like Arpaio the authority to enforce the federal immigration laws. His apparent abuse of that authority led the Department of Homeland Security to tighten the reins on Arpaio, whom immigrant advocacy groups and eventually federal officials accused of ethnic and racial profiling. In October, Arpaio complained that the Department of Homeland Security had undermined his authority to arrest illegal immigrants on the street. Still, Arpaio has an agreement with DHS that permits him to check the immigration status of all of his inmates and turn over anyone undocumented to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Next — 1. Lou Dobbs

Read the rest here:
2. Joe Arpaio

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano came to Washington from Arizona, where she served as attorney general and governor and was politically aligned with “Sheriff Joe” (see 2. Joe Arpaio ). Eager to dispel Republican claims that Democrats would be soft on crime, terrorists and illegal aliens, Napolitano has made cracking down on illegal aliens a hallmark of her tenure as chief immigration enforcement official. In 2009, Napolitano expanded the controversial 287(g) program deputizing local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. The expansion was much to the chagrin of immigrants’ advocates and even many police chiefs, who complained the program stoked immigrants’ fears and undermined their willingness to cooperate with local police. Napolitano also expanded the Secure Communities program, which collects fingerprints of anyone jailed locally and transmits them to DHS. The agency anticipates the program will lead to tens of thousands more deportations in 2010. Next — 2. Joe Arpaio

Read more:
3. Janet Napolitano

The longtime CNN anchor has targeted “illegal aliens” for years now, publicly blaming them for everything from violent crime to failing schools to drug gangs and lethal communicable diseases. As advocates pushed for a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year, they perceived Dobbs and his platform at CNN as a primary obstacle. Dobbs held the power to sway public opinion against legalization (what Dobbs derisively calls “amnesty”) for any of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants who live and work in the United States. Then in November, after months of halfheartedly trying to muzzle himself on the issue following a directive from his boss, Dobbs gave up and announced his resignation from CNN. Immigrants’ advocates cheered. Dobbs isn’t likely to disappear, however. Many expect him to run for political office, which may be why in late November he was telling Spanish-language television that legalization of some illegal immigrants wouldn’t be so bad after all, “under certain conditions.” Click here to replay slideshow.

Read the original post:
1. Lou Dobbs