Vyan

Thursday, May 6

Let us all now join the Bigot Parade!

Apparently Dan Finelli (R-FL) who is running for the seat currently held by Alan Grayson thinks all you need to do to find a terrorist is look for their beady eyes, see the Turbin and the Olive Skin...



But Mr. FINELLI isn't that what they used to say about finding members of - y'know - THE MAFIA, except for the Turbin...

Welcome to the Bigot Parade, wherein Really Dumb People think they can see into the depths of your soul, by looking at your skin tone...

It might seem to some simplistically logical to look for terrorists coming from countries that threaten us, except that it really doesn't work.

One of the larger problems facing the security industry in the era of mass terrorism is the task of creating a profile of a likely terrorist. Identifying those at risk of first time offenses is a challenge in any context, but the stakes are higher when that offense may also be the last, and involve the deaths of dozens of people. We've discussed the challenges of generating profiles of potential terrorists in the past, but a study that will be released by the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science does a mathematical analysis how we're deploying the profiles we do have, and suggests we may not be using them wisely.

The study was performed by William Press, who does bioinformatics research at the University of Texas, Austin, with a joint appointment at Los Alamos National Labs. His background in statistics is apparent in his ability to handle various mathematical formulae with aplomb, but he's apparently used to explaining his work to biologists, since the descriptions that surround those formulae make the general outlines of the paper fairly accessible.

Press starts by examining what could be viewed as an idealized situation, at least from the screening perspective: a single perpetrator living under an authoritarian government that has perfect records on its citizens. Applying a profile to those records should allow the government to rank those citizens in order of risk, and it can screen them one-by-one until it identifies the actual perpetrator. Those circumstances lead to a pretty rapid screening process, and they can be generalized out to a situation where there are multiple likely perpetrators.

Things go rapidly sour for this system, however, as soon as you have an imperfect profile. In that case, which is more likely to reflect reality, there's a finite chance that the screening process misses a likely security risk. Since it works its way through the list of individuals iteratively, it never goes back to rescreen someone that's made it through the first pass. The impact of this flaw grows rapidly as the ability to accurately match the profile to the data available on an individual gets worse. Since we've already said that making a profile is challenging, and we know that even authoritarian governments don't have perfect information on their citizens, this system is probably worse than random screening in the real world.


Let's also remember that the 9-11 hijackers didn't come from enemy states, they came from Saudi Arabia who we consider an ally and from the United Arab Emirates who we nearly sold all of our ports to, years after 9-11.

More via Thinkprogress...

Indeed, terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and do not simply belong to one religion, ethnicity, or nationality. The “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, was Jamaican and British. Al Qaeda recruit Adam Pearlman was a white American. Germaine Lindsay, one of London’s 7/7 bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a black African.


Jose Padilla was an American Citizen of Latino descent as was Bryan Neal Vinas, a Long Island resident, former Catholic and Boy Scout who converted to Islam moved to Pakistan where he was caught fighting U.S. Forces with the Taliban.

And lastly let's recall Faisal Shahzad - who looks more like a trendy club hopper than a Terrorist - is also a Naturalized American Citizen with an MBA, who originally came from a country - Pakistan - that had never committed an act of international terrorism before.

The fact is that Racial Profiling doesn't work. The ACLU has sponsored a variety of studies of the techniques use by Law Enforcement via Racial Profiling.

While Hispanics comprise less than eight percent of the Illinois population, and take fewer than three percent of the personal vehicle trips in Illinois, they comprise approximately 30 percent of the motorists stopped by ISP drug interdiction officers for discretionary offenses such as failure to signal a lane change or driving one to four miles over the speed limit. For example, in ISP District 13, which covers seven counties southeast of St. Louis, Hispanics comprise less than one percent of the local driving-age population, yet they represent 29 percent of all people stopped by these officers for speeding less than five miles above the speed limit.

While African Americans comprise less than 15 percent of the Illinois population and take approximately 10 percent of the personal vehicle trips in Illinois, they comprise 23 percent of the searches conducted by Valkyrie officers. In District 4, where African-Americans comprise 24 percent of the local driving-age population, but are the targets of 63 percent of the searches.


The main problem as has been shown in many studies is that even though there was no evidence that Black or Latino drivers "drive worse" and therefore are legitimately creating the cause of the stop on their own, they are nonetheless searched 2 or 3 Times as Often regardless of the reason for the stop and the "Hit Rate" - the percentage of finding drugs or other contraband - among Whites, Latinos and Blacks are pretty much equal and sometimes Greater for Whites.

While troopers ask a higher percentage of Hispanic motorists than white motorists for consent to search their vehicles, they find contraband in a lower percentage of the vehicles of Hispanic motorists. This demonstrates that searches are based on race, not results.


So if they aren't finding MORE drugs, More often by targeting people racially - why are they stopping and searching these particular people? And why aren't we all clamoring for them to STOP WASTING TIME AND TAX PAYER FUNDS HARASSING INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH UNNECESSARY STOPS AND SEARCHES? Also it seems to me that if I needed a drug courier, they would be safer and less likely to be be searched and caught - if they were White.

The same issues would apply to using these failed techniques to fight terrorism (al Qeada and the Taliban know this hence they don't recruit people from the most "obvious" places - instead using Abdulmuttalab from Senegal or Vinas from Long Island).

These issue also apply to capturing illegal aliens, it's not just about what you look like, it should be about what your doing (aka Probable Cause).

Yet people like Finelli apparently think that when al Qeada needs a new suicide bomber, they make a call to Central Casting. Finelli's ad - and what he must have done to find people to play the "terrorists" kinda reminds me of how Hollywood Based stereotypes have seeped into our consciousness for decades and not by accident as shown by Robert Townsend's "Hollywood Shuffle" over 23 years ago - I think of it as Terrorist Acting School.



Not counting Finelli, certainly we've come long way Brotha from those dark days as this more recent scene from Showtime's Sleeper Cell (showing a Black Muslim FBI agent as the main character attempting to infiltrate an al Qeada Cell in East L.A. which includes both Latino's & Whites and is led by the Daily Show's Aasiv Manvi - Yes, Aasiv Manvi played a Terrorist - Black people may have gotten out of the Stereotypical Hollywood Box, but Asians and Arabs haven't yet!)



Somehow I think these guys would have completely defeated Finelli's brilliant strategery to foil their plot simply by not LOOKING like who he thinks they should.

Vyan

Monday, May 3

How the Tea Party Handles a Racist, Blame Him on Dems

Look, a Tea Party and Conservative Activist/Blogger Adam Sharp actually Found a Racist (who wouldn't deny it) and did what he's supposed to do -- confront him.



But then in his blog post about this video he claims that this guys was a "Democrat Plant" who was there to make the Tea Party look bad... Dude, you really don't need help with that.

I do have to give this guy credit for standing ground against this Nazi Pig - but then he somewhat destroys his own argument when he start to get into "Quien es Mas Christian" fight with the guy and then asks him -

Do you go to Reverend Wrights Church - He's a Racist!


Yeah, ok - ya lost me with that one pal. I think Wright's a self-aggrandizing wackadoodle, but he's not a racist. But even if you assume he is a Racist, he would be more of a so-called Black Nationalist not a Nazi you dipwad.

Nowhere in this video does the admitted Nazi claim to be a Democrat, in fact he challenges the videographer Sharp's own Conservatives Bona Fides by asking if he's a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens?

The CCC has a long linkage with Conservatives and the Republican Party - this is what the ADL says about the them.

The St. Louis-based Council of Conservative Citizens traces its roots directly to the racist, anti-integrationist White Citizens' Councils of the 1950s and 1960s.

Its current leader, attorney Gordon Lee Baum, was an organizer for the WCC and built the Council of Conservative Citizens in part from the old group's mailing lists. Like its predecessor, the CCC inflames fears and resentments, particularly among Southern whites, with regard to black-on-white crime, nonwhite immigration, attacks on the Confederate flag and other issues related to "traditional" Southern culture. Although the group claims not to be racist, its leaders traffic with other white supremacist groups and its publications, Web sites and meetings all promote the purportedly innate superiority of whites. Despite its record, the CCC has been successful in drawing southern politicians to its events: the 1998 revelation that then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had been a frequent speaker before the group drew substantial media attention. Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, Mississippi state senators and several state representatives have appeared in recent years.


Sharps post has been picked up and has been spinning around the Wingnut Interwebs including Andrew Breitbart's own BigGovernment.com where they claim this interlopper was a "Leftist Plant" - because apparently the Conservatives never met a Racist who wasn't a Democrat.

Leftist and racist infiltrators were forced to flee at tea party rallies in St. Louis, San Francisco, Oceanside and Greensboro.


Racist? Yes. Leftists? Not a chance.

Brietbart who has been defending Tea Partiers by announcing a $100,000 reward for anyone with video of Democratic Congressmen being called the "N-Word" - (although Video from ABC News has already confirmed that Barney Frank was called "Faggot")



However at the Tax Day Tea Party Rally, rather than simply calling Rep. Cleaver and Lewis Liars - has decided that maybe they weren't lying, and even if something might have happened They Were ASKING For it!!



At last night’s FreedomWorks Tax Day Tea Party event at the Washington Monument, a sneering and slightly slurry Andrew Breitbart, the right’s new media entrepreneur and sponsor of the anti-ACORN provocateur James O’Keefe, delivered a rant that was at times incoherent and laced with mild profanity.

Breitbart’s overall message seemed to be that the Tea Party crowd has been unfairly described by the mainstream media as racist and violent, when in fact, it’s the “union thugs” who are violent. As for the racism, well, he seemed to say, members of the Congressional Black Caucus sought to provoke racist behavior from Tea Party activists gathered on the Capitol grounds on the day that health-care legislation won final passage.

“I study media,” Breitbart told the crowd. “I pay attention to media, I’ve gone to the circus: I know a trick when I see it. And I see Barney Frank walkin’ around, I see the Congressional Black Caucus, I see Sheila Jackson Lee, taunting with a V-sign. I’m like, ‘What on God’s green earth is happening here?’ A half hour later, you see Nancy Pelosi with a shit-eating grin, holding that gavel. This was a stunt. They wanted to provoke you, my friends.”


Yeah, how dare Barney Frank walk around Capital, it's not like he Works There or anything? How dare Sheila Jackson Lee flash a Peace Sign, clearly she's asking for trouble. How dare Nancy Pelosi SMILE, and hold a Gavel like she's Speaker of the House or something. She and Senator Patty Murray were just asking to receive Death Threats!

And while we at it, how dare John Lewis walk across that bridge in Selma - clearly he was just asking to be nearly beaten to Death - In fact I'll bet he probably wasn't even injured back then where's the VIDEO of it?



And obviously the Freedom Riders were simply begging to be kidnapped and murdered - just like those dirty Liberals at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville Tennesee who were gunned down by James Adkisson just last year.

Yeah, they were all Asking For it.

But then again it didn't really happen did it Andrew since you didn't see it on video. And this out-and-out Nazi Conservative guy didn't show up at a Tea Party - cuz he was just Democrat in disguise.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that Baggers - just keep it up. You might convince each other, but not the 80% of the public that disagrees with you.

Vyan

Fox Politicizing Time Square Car Bomb Attempt

Via Media Matters - Fox and Rudy 9-11-Iuiani are yet again hammering the Obama Administration as being weak on "Terruh" in their response to the attempted Time's Square Car Bombing.



Discussing the incident with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, co-host Gretchen Carlson said, "Let's face it. Anyone who wants to blow up and kill people in Times Square, it's no doubt an act of terrorism. We just interviewed though, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who refuses to say the word terror. Is this a mandate within the Obama administration, not saying the word terror?"


But as usual, Fox and Carlson were yet again WRONG!

In the just concluded interview Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano actually *didn't* refuse to say the Magical Mystical Special Super Secret Word - "TERROR!" - she said repeatedly she wouldn't rule it out.

DOOCY: The other key thing, Madam Secretary, is that this is terrorism, right?

NAPOLITANO: Well, it's certainly something that I would not rule out. The way it was carried out, the kind of device that was used. Again, until we know the perpetrators, the people -- person or persons who were responsible -- you don't know the derivation, you don't know their intent. But I would not rule that out.

DOOCY: Well, right. Clearly, the guy was trying to, if not kill people, scare people, which is terrorism.

NAPOLITANO: Well, and we do know that if that --you know, if the explosions had been properly done and ignited, that would have been quite a fireball in that particular area. It was not properly done, it was not effective. And one of the very significant things that occurred here was that street vendors noticed this truck improperly parked, notified law enforcement, law enforcement immediately took action. Really an illustration about how everyone has a role to play when we're talking about our security.

CARLSON: I think the American public sees it as an act of terrorism, but the proof will be in the coming days.


The fact is we don't yet know exactly why this device was placed or who placed it, and Napolitano is simply reflecting the truth of that reality.

Also the argument Obama "refuses to say Terror, Terrorist or Terrorism" is blatantly false.

Obama on the attempted Christmas Day Bombing.

Good morning, everybody. I just want to take a few minutes to update the American people on the attempted terrorist attack that occurred on Christmas Day and the steps we're taking to ensure the safety and security of the country.

[...]

Thanks to the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew, the suspect was immediately subdued, the fire was put out, and the plane landed safely. The suspect is now in custody and had been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft. And a full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.

[...]

Second, I've ordered two important reviews because it's absolutely critical that we learn from this incident and take the necessary measures to prevent future acts of terrorism. The first review involves our watch list system, which our government has had in place for many years to identify known and suspected terrorists so that we can prevent their entry into the United States.


Obama on December 7th speaking to the Turkish people.

We reaffirmed the shared commitment to defeat terrorist activity regardless of where it occurs. I expressed condolences to the Prime Minister and the Turkish people for the recent terrorist attack that was taken there and pledged U.S. support in trying to bring the perpetrators of this violence to justice.


Here's the thing, Fox is already steering this situation into a "Terrorist Act" clearly by a MULSIM foreign power or agency. They've been proding police with questions about whether this is related to the Controversial South Park near-depiction of Mohammad.

Authorities have not ruled out a link between Saturday's failed Times Square bombing and a New York Islamic group that warned the creators of "South Park" that they face retaliation for lampooning the Prophet Muhammad.

Younus Abdullah Muhammed, who runs the website RevolutionMuslim.com, told the New York Daily News he was in Times Square when the bomb-packed SUV was found, but he said he was not involved in the failed terror attack.

"What do you think, I commanded somebody to blow up a building in the middle of Times Square?" Muhammed told the newspaper.

"It had nothing to do with the 'South Park' controversy. It was not an attack targeting Viacom," he said. He could not be reached for further comment early Monday.


There has been a claim of responsibility from the Pakistan Taliban, but no one is taking that seriously.

But what if yet again, Fox is Wrong and this wasn't done by an evil wacky Muslim?

What if this really was done by one of Hannity's "Tim McVeigh" wannabes? What if this bomb was really an attempted repeat of the bombing attacks by Eric Robert Rudolph who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, several women's clinics and a gay nightclub?



What if it was a repeat of the kinds of firebombings perpetrated by Shelley Shannon - who describes/confesses to her actions here on the Army of God Website, and is now serving time in prison for shooting Dr. George Tiller in each arm.

What if it someone like James Adkisson who shot and killed two "Liberals" in Knoxville Tennessee because he felt Fox News Contributor Bernard Goldberg would've enjoyed that.



Or a group like the Hutaree Militia who planned to kill police officers, then bomb their funeral. Or someone like James Van Brunn, the BIRTHER who killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum in DC?



Or someone like Joe Stack who flew his plane into the Austin IRS Offices? Or someone like Gregory Guisti who threaten to Kill Speaker Nancy Pelosi after FOX News told him how "Evil" and "Far Left" she was?

What if it wasn't a terrorist from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen or Afghanistan - what if they came from the Nation of Fox?

There isn't any evidence that they did - yet. But it's also something - we can't rule out, can we?

There are two things that make me personally think this probably wasn't a muslim terrorist bombing attempt, 1) Their Car Bombs tend to WORK REALLY WELL with sophisticated cellphone remote triggers or else they stay with the bomb and ensure that it goes off, while this one was a Fracking Mess...

The would-be car-bomber who left an SUV loaded with propane and gas cans, fireworks and timing devices on a Times Square street also had more than 100 pounds of fertilizer, but not the kind that would explode, police said today.

Sources also told ABC News that the valves on the propane tanks were not open, which would have made it less likely that the gas inside would have ignited.


Which would've made this the biggest Firepie in history and 2) Video Surveillance showed a "WHITE GUY" leaving the area and attempting to disguise himself - not a dark skinned Arab.


Police are looking for white male in his 40s who was seen leaving the area near the SUV and shedding a dark shirt, revealing a red shirt underneath, about a half block from where survellance cameras saw the vehicle entering Times Square at about 6:28 p.m. Saturday, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said.


Listen closely, any second now there should be a collective "Oh Shit!" coming from Fox Plaza soon...


Vyan

The Heart of Liberal Anger

In this video Mike Malloy, who I often consider to be way over the top pretty much lays out the Heart of Liberal Anger - which is focused Laser-Like on Predatory Capitalism.

This is Reason I'm Angry All the Time


I myself am not quite as angry as Mike Malloy, but in this video he does lay out the two visions of America that have been battling each other since it's inception.

America Version A) Is owned and controlled by monied corporate interests, manipulated economically through predatory capitalism and politically through a broken campaign finance system to serve the needs of those interests in direct opposition to the needs of the people.

America Version B) Is one where owning and operating a business is considered an opportunity, a privaledge and a responsibility - not A Right. Workers and Consumers have Rights and are "Persons", Corporations are Not.

Time and time again, Liberals have battled for America Version B - while Conservatives have used Political Stunts and Activist Right-Wing Judges to implement and maintain America Version A. It was Liberals who ended Slavery, back when the Republican party Was predominantly Liberal in the mold of Lincoln. It was Liberals who brought the vote to women. It was Liberals who passed Social Security, Medicare and Civil Rights. Yes, some of these were opposed by Democrats, Conservative Democrats - and supported by Republicans, but those were Liberal Republicans.

Since then those Liberals were driven out of the Republican Party, and many of those Conservative Democrats joined it.

Time and time again, it's been the Conservatives who fought against the expansion of personal liberty, and FOR corporate and business interests. While doing it they've done a ton of name-calling and blame shifting to excuse their cow-towing to the fat cats - even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was called "Socialist", "Marxist", "Communist" and "America-Hater" - so we know this tact is nothing really new.

I didn't work then and it won't work now.

None of these cheap smears have ever come close to the mark, and never will - they are simply a diversion from the fact that the Conservative wing - of both parties - are nothing more than Corporate shills.

This is why you don't see the Cult of Foxonality and Tea Baggers Marching On Wall Street - you see the AFL-CIO, Micheal Moore and Rage Against the Machine doing it. Where for art thou Baggers?

Liberals, don't Worship Money Like it's a "God".

Anyone remember: "Whose picture do you see here? Render onto Caesar, what is Caesar's..."

At the same time we don't "Hate Business", we simply think they need to be kept in check or else all hell breaks lose. When corporations go unchecked, unmonitored and unregulated the result is chaos, whether it be lead paint in our children's toys, to cars that run but won't stop, oil spills that threaten to coat the entire Gulf, contractors that cover up the drugging and gang rape of their own employees as well as poison and electrocute our soldiers, mercenaries who murder innocent civilians in cold blood on the streets of Baghdad, mines operations that collapse and explode, sick people being cut off from access to health care - simply because they had the temerity to GET SICK and cost an insurance company some cash, to a selfish short-sighted and horrifically GREEDY banking and loan industry that nearly brought our entire country to screeching grinding collapse.

Out of Control Big Business is like a runaway Semi-Trailer on the Interstate with the capacity to kill and maim hundreds before it finally comes to rest - this is why we need to enforce the Rules of the Road, not only to protect all the other cars on the highway (Consumers & Workers) but even to protect the SEMI itself, with clearly posted road signs and speed limits.

It's not "Socialism", it's just plain common sense.

Here's another Liberal, Helen Thomas being grilled by Fox Business on her temerity for daring - to be a LIBERAL.



As Thomas points out - Liberals don't hate Capitalism. (Nor are we "Socialists")

But we also don't think rampant out-of-control capitalism should allowed to grow wild and like a form a Cancer, or else it will kill our nation, and potentially KILL OUR PLANET.

Obama: You should have nothing to fear from financial reform, unless your business model is to BILK people!


Problem is for many companies these days - Bilking People is their ONLY business model. That has to change.

Malloy Says:

How can we stand here with the House on Fire, and not Call the Fire Dept? Don't you know that it'll all burn down?


How? We don't put the Fire out because the people who set the Fire (Big Business) have also bought and paid for complete control of the the Fire Dept (Government) which has the task of trying to save the house, but can't - or won't.

Liberals Don't "Hate America"... we're trying to Save it, we want to PUT The FIRE OUT.

But we can get pretty pissed off at it. When, in the name of corporate and monied interests, America commits Genocide as it did with the native American, it pisses us off. When, in the name of corporate and monied interests, America Enslaves and Exploits it's own People - it pisses us off. When, in the name of corporate and monied interests, America denies equal access to the right to Vote, equal protection in the home and workplace, equal and fair access not to be accosted, searched, harassed, spied on and tortured without probable cause, due process and the writ of habeas corpus - we get pissed off.

Meanwhile the Tea baggers scream about "Liberty" being taken away by "Big Government" - but whose Liberty are we really talking about? The Liberty of any American to see the Doctor of their choice, or the "Liberty" of an Insurance company to take your money and give you BUPKIS for it?

The Only Rights Baggers seem to understand are the 1st Amendment (Right to TALK SHIT) and 2nd (Right to Carry A Gun) - not exactly an inspiring combination. But just ask them - ASK THEM - what's the 4th Amendment? What's the 6th Amendment About? What's the 8th Amendment?

Just for the record those would be protections against the "Unlawful Search and Seizure", "Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses" and "Cruel and Unusual Treatment".

Now ask them, if they're so concerned about Big Government "Take-Overs" where we're they when the Patriot Act was passed? Where we're they when Gitmo was erected? Where we they during Abu Ghraib? Where we they when Torture was authorized (an even used against American Citizens like Jose Padilla, not just "Foreign Enemy Combatants" - they tortured Americans!)? Where were they when some of those Tortured prisoners Died?

Is that the America that you Baggers Love, one that kidnaps, tortures and murders people that we knew were innocent?

Liberals want America to be BETTER than that.

What is the Bagger answer to Big Corporate Crime? "Let the Free market Decide?"

That would be the same "Free Market" that has elevated Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga to super stardom? The same "Free Market" that let Tobacco companies sell a cancerous additive product to the American public for Decades while lying to us - and Congress - about it?
That would be the "Free Market" that has used it's political influence to neuter Consumer protections via the courts with so-called "Tort Reform".

And isn't it interesting that all the Evolution and Global Warming Deniers seemed to all by 100% Social and Economic Darwinist?

"Simply trust in the invisible hand of the God-Market to take care of everything"

They don't worship Jesus, they only worship Money.

However, LIberals don't hate Money, we Love Money - we love Making Money (Case in point: Hollywood), but NOT if we have to do it by screwing somebody else over.

The truth is that Individual workers and individual consumers don't have the economic power to topple corporate giants when they've used that influnce to rig every element of the game in their favor. They've used their money to continue "business as usual" - even though the house really is burning down.

Sometimes someone as large and BIG as Big Business has to bring them to HEEL, and that can only be a Government (or maybe a Union) that's just a big and powerful as they are.

Liberals think it's time to put the Damn Fire Out, then grab those Business Arsonist by the Scruff of the neck and let them see what real American Justice is all about.

Liberal's don't blindly trust Big Government, far from it, they simply recognize it's something that's sometimes needed to control Big Business.

That's not "Anti-American" - it's the only way to Save America from self-destructing in a blind feeding frenzy of greed!

If Tea Baggers think they're "Angry" over ridiculous phantasms like "Death Panels" - they don't know what Real Anger is over the REAL ISSUES that threaten us all.

Vyan

Wednesday, April 28

Palin & Hannity - Denying Reality of the Racism of SB1070

It's more than a bit past the ridiculous point by now isn't it? Every verifiable fact is constantly turned upside down by the Fox Liar Cannon and soaked up into the very pores of the Bagger Rank and File.

Case in point: Palin and Hannity say that the new Arizona "Papers Please" Law has nothing to do with "Racial Profiling"... except that of course, it does.



"Thankfully, Byron York, he hit the nail on the head," Palin told Sean Hannity of Fox News on Tuesday. "There is no ability or opportunity in there for the racial profiling. And shame on the lamestream media again for turning this into something that it is not."

"Governor Jan Brewer did what she had to do as the CEO of that state to help protect the citizens of her state," Palin continued. "I think it's shameful too that the Obama administration has allowed this to become more of a racial issue by perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part of this law."

In a column for the conservative Washington Examiner on Monday, York had described the Arizona law as "a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure" that merely "requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally."

Despite York's claims, however, the new Arizona law offers every opportunity for racial profiling, since it influences who will be chosen by the police for a "lawful stop." As explained at Commonweal Magazine, the "assurance that the 'law does not authorize unlawful stops' is only comforting if you ignore the breadth of the category of 'lawful stops.' It is perfectly lawful for a police officer to simply approach you on the street or in the grocery store or enter a bus you are riding and, for no apparent reason, engage you in conversation. Once he does, anything you say or do that gives him 'reasonable suspicion' that you are an illegal immigrant requires him to force you to show your proverbial 'papers.'”


Oh, I see - because Byron York says you can't just stop anyone on the street without any reason other than "suspicion" then it's just "Fine and Ok" then?

Except that's not what the law says thanks to The Google and you're basic handy dandy Popiel-O-Matic PDF Reader.

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION.


I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say Byron is wrong.

Not only does this law involve "Any lawful contact - where reasonable suspicion exists" (whatever THAT is, maybe shoes) - you must also note that it is not limited to Law Enforcement, but includes any "Agency of this State, County, City or Town". This is further illustrated by the sections which talk about attempt to access state services.

- 1 -
F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
ANY INDIVIDUAL
OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES: 45
1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.


This means County Hospitals, Locals Schools, even the local Licensing Boards for Hunting and Fishing - all have authority to gather and share information about anyones immigration status.

They just turned every State, County and City employee into a Narc. Anytime, at any moment, ANY citizen who is even remotely "suspicious" looking, or simply tries to access government services can be required to verify their immigration status on the spot or face possible arrest and detention.

Further, what recourse does anyone have if the Officer makes an "Unlawful" Stop? Isn't that something that would have to be argued in court, after you've already been apprehended and held?. What good is pointing out that the stop was illegal going to do you for getting that lost jail time back, which at a minimum could be days even you it turns out you aren't an illegal, but simply didn't have proof on hand?

Additionally if an agent of the state Fails to inquire and investigate someones legal status - that agent may be subject to a Civil Suit.

G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.


Every Sherrif in Arizona, is now Joe Arapaio. Every County Clerk is now their Snitch. This is NOT Optional. It is not a request. It is Mandated.

That's about as far from a "a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure" as you can get. Not only that, but this new law turns anyone found to be in the state illegally into a Trespasser under violation of State Law.

Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1509, to read: 39
13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
classification
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH
:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).


Again, I'm not a lawyer - but I really have to question the Constitutionality of creating a State Law that is dependent on someone violating Federal Law before there has been a trial to verify that Federal violation.

But y'know there's nothing Racial about any of this, except the fact that this entire Law was written by a White Supremacist.



Sometimes there really aren't "Two Sides" to an issue, very often there's simply the Truth vs a bunch of Fracking Fairly Unbalanced BULLSHIT like what York, Hannity and Palin are currently spewing up.

I don't think that Hannity and Palin are themselves Racists, I actually think they're something worse - they're willing aiders and abettors of blatant racism. They attempt to Excuse, Rationalize and Justify it - then when the get caught they play the "Victim" Card faster than a Hustler game of three-card Monty.

This law is a Wingnut Wetdream, and will ultimately prove a horrible disaster for Arizona. It's true we do have major immigration problems in this country, but turning ourselves literally into a Paranoid Police State can't possibly be the answer.

Vyan

Thursday, April 22

Jon Stewart Apologies to Fox News - Kinda

Jon Stewart Apologizes to Fox News and Bernie Goldberg, but only because they're a terrible, cynical, disingenuous (NON) News Organization.



Goldberg attacks Stewart for not showing "Guts" if he's going to move from Comedy into Social Commentary (y'know like Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, Lewis Black, Chris Rock, Bill Maher or the Late George Carlin) and going after the guys on the Left as much as he does the guys on the Right. Never mind the fact that he already does that, he's in Comedy he's not pretending to give equal time (and then not do it - the way that Fox Does).


This is the same BS argument that fTucker Carlson gave him when he said that CNN's Crossfire was "hurting our Country" by failing to actually look at issues fairly, but instead just generate a lot of shouting and yelling at each other. All Heat and No Light - yet again, like Fox News.

In the end, Stewart Scores AGAIN leaving things at Dailyshow 3 (including his pointing out O'Reilly's hypocrisy on Protests) : Fox News : 0.





Vyan

Anderson Cooper PWNS Arizona State Birther

Wherein Anderson Cooper flays and fillets Arizona State Republican Rep Cecil Ash over his support for the new Birther Bill that has just passed the State Legislature.



(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Joining us now is Arizona Republican State Representative Cecil Ash, who voted for the measure.

Thanks very much for being with us.

Do you believe Barack Obama is an American born in Hawaii?

CECIL ASH (R), ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: All the evidence I have seen is that he was born in Hawaii. I have seen a birth certificate on the Internet. Of course, you can't believe everything you see on the Internet. So, I have never personally investigated it or studied it.

COOPER: But, Oklahoma, it sounds like you're -- really saying you believe it, but you don't believe what you read on the Internet. So, you do believe he's an American, though?

ASH: Yes, I do.

COOPER: I mean, as you said, the certificate of live birth is available for anyone to see. It's been released. And, in Hawaii, there are only electronic records at this point, and the health department there has verified it. They have made public statements.

So, why vote for something which perpetuates these false Internet rumors?

ASH: Well, Anderson, I think there's been a lot of controversy over the issue. It's created a division among a lot of people in the United States. And, for better or worse, many people don't believe he is a U.S. citizen. They believe he has loyalties -- divided loyalties, I suppose you could say.

COOPER: Right, but those people are wrong. I mean, he is a U.S. citizen.

ASH: Well, you're telling me that he's wrong. I have never investigated that. If he is, then he has nothing to fear.

COOPER: But -- but, I mean, that -- the information is out there. It has been released. It has been shown. There are some people who don't believe it, but there are also some people who believe that the moon is made out of cheese. And you can say you have never investigated it, but I think you would probably say the moon is not made out of cheese.

ASH: Well, I certainly would.

But the reason I spoke up on this bill is simply because there is a lot of division in the country. And I believe this would put an end to any future controversy about a president's qualifications.

COOPER: You told our producer you voted for this because you get a lot of calls from constituents with questions based on things they have read on the Internet.

I mean, isn't it your job as a leader to actually lead, not to throw up your hands and say, well, who knows what's real or not on the Internet, to actually say, well, actually, you know, Hawaii has released this information, and it's factually correct?

ASH: Well, as I said, I haven't personally investigated that. But I -- I think that, if -- if...

COOPER: But, I mean, there's plenty of things you believe that you have not personally investigated.

ASH: That's true.

COOPER: Why, this, are you holding onto?

ASH: Well, what we're requiring here is for a -- a presidential candidate to demonstrate he is qualified.

And I don't think having any presidential candidate -- candidate show that he's qualified by demonstrating the requirements of the requirements, that there's any problem with that.

COOPER: You told my producer you thought the president spent a million dollars fighting the release of his birth certificate, and then that raised concerns for you.

(CROSSTALK)

ASH: That's what I have heard. As I said, it...

COOPER: Right. But that's not -- you know that's actually not true?

ASH: I -- I don't know that that's not true. As I said, I haven't studied it. You get a lot of information on the Internet. As you know, much of it is inaccurate.

This has not been a focus of my attention for the last two years. But I know it is a matter of -- of controversy for many people. And I looked at this as simply a -- a means to end that controversy.

COOPER: You -- you also said to our producer that the president identified himself as a foreigner on his college application.

ASH: Yes.

COOPER: You know that's not true, right?

ASH: I didn't know that that was not true.

COOPER: That's a story that was put out on April Fool's Day. It's a fake AP news story.

ASH: Like I said, I -- I'm reluctant to read anything I read on the Internet, including the evidence about his birth certificate.

This -- this is not the responsibility of the average citizen.

COOPER: So -- so -- so, the only -- the only way you will believe a birth certificate is if, what, you see it for yourself at the state office in Hawaii? I mean, to not believe anything that is put out by anyone, then how can you believe anything? I mean...

ASH: Well, it's -- it...

(LAUGHTER)

ASH: It's not my -- it's not my responsibility...

COOPER: Do you believe...

(CROSSTALK)

ASH: ... to check the qualifications.

When someone comes to be on the ballot in Arizona, it's not my responsibility to check those qualifications. It's the responsibility of the secretary of state.

And, so, all we said is, if -- if it's required that you be a natural-born citizen, he should determine that. Now, you -- you argue this in terms of what's happened to Barack Obama. I'm thinking in terms of the next nominees down the road.

COOPER: But this is all about Barack Obama. I mean, this is -- this is completely partisan, no?

ASH: Well -- well, that's why I spoke up on the bill. They were -- the other side, the Democrats, were saying this is racist; it's to embarrass Barack Obama.

And I spoke up to say, this is not a matter of race. It's not a racist issue. I'm merely voting for the -- as you call it, the birthers amendment.

COOPER: So, where was George Bush born?

ASH: I have no idea where George Bush was born.

COOPER: But you -- that wasn't a concern for you when he was in office?

ASH: The issue never came up.

COOPER: What about Bill Clinton? Where was he born?

ASH: I have no idea.

COOPER: So, all of a sudden, you're concerned about where the president of the United States is born, based on calls you're getting from constituents who are misinformed?

ASH: Actually, I did not get any calls from constituents until after this bill was passed.

But I don't think there's any harm in requiring someone to demonstrate that they meet the requirements for the position. Now, nobody can deny -- regardless of what you believe about President Obama, nobody can deny that there's been a controversy. You may deny...

COOPER: Well, yes, but there's controversy about everything. People -- and there -- but there are things called facts, and you know the facts. You are a leader. You know the facts.

Isn't it your job -- when a constituent calls and says, gosh, I'm reading all this stuff on the Internet that President Obama was a -- was foreign exchange student, to say, actually, no, he wasn't?

I mean, isn't it -- that your -- part of your job?

ASH: Look, President Obama is president now. For the future, this kind of controversy should not come up again, because they will have to establish that up front. And that will avoid this kind of controversy in the future.

COOPER: To your critics who will say that you and the other Republicans -- only Republicans voted for this -- are simply pandering to a misinformed electorate, that, rather than setting the record straight yourselves, you're just pandering. You're kind of throwing up your hands and saying, gosh, I don't know, there's a lot of stuff on the Internet, a lot of it seems controversial, we need this bill, rather than saying, actually, this information is false.

ASH: Well, I think our purpose was to avoid this kind of controversy in the future. And I think that's appropriate. That's our job as leaders is to eliminate the possibility of this kind of controversy in the future.

COOPER: State Representative Cecil Ash, I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir.

ASH: Thank you very much. Bye.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Monday, April 19

Contact Congress TODAY and Get them on Record about Non-Violence

I just got off the phone with the Offices of all three of my Congressmen (Women) Senator Boxer, Senator Fienstein and Rep Waters in order to ask them a very specific question...

Does the Congressperson Unequivocally Renounce and Denounce All Forms of Political Violence?

The Following are the Answers I Received

I just got off the phone with the Offices of all three of my Congressmen (Women) Senator Boxer, Senator Fienstein and Rep Waters in order to ask them a very specific question...

[b]Does the Congressperson Unequivocally Renounce and Denounce All Forms of Political Violence?[/b]

The Following are the Answers I Received
The reason i made this call was because of what day it is today, the 17th Anniversary of the Tragic End of the Waco Incident and the 15th Anniversary of the Bombing of the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building.

In recent weeks and months there has been a clear uptick in incidents of violence against the Government, threats and vile epithets against elected leaders.

We need to know where each and every one of our elected representatives stand this issue - oddly enough [i]their[/i] lives might depend on it in the end. The question isn't one about War, which some could argue is a form of Political Violence - but that's not the question I'm asking because that general occurs between nations, and could be more accurately described as [i]Diplomatic Violence[/i]. War is what happens when the negotiations and Diplomacy have completely failed. No, what I'm really talking about here is Terrorism and Intimidation. Domestic Terrorism and Intimidation, regardless of partisanship.

I did not address whether this violence is coming more from the left or the right giving examples such as the recent Death Threats against Speaker Pelosi as well as GOP Whip Cantor.

McVeigh's Truck Bomb didn't ask which political party you belonged too.

I didn't ask whether the Senators and Reps felt that Extreme Rhetoric from the Tea Parties was necessarily contributing to the increase in threats and actual violence, as that is a Free Speech Debate.

The question is simple:

[b]Does the Congressperson Unequivocally Renounce and Denounce All Forms of Political Violence?[/b]

The question isn't a trick, it's either "Yes" answer or "No, with qualifications/excuses..."

I first spoke with [b]Sen Boxer's Office[/b] and in pretty short order received an answer of "[b]YES[/b]" from the staffer on the phone. It was quick, it was painless, it was unequivocal.

I then called [b]Senator Feinstein's[/b] Office and asked the staffer on the phone referred to the Press Office where I repeated the question, with some background as to why I'm asking it - [i]On this day[/i] - including who I was and what I planned to do with the information (Post it here and on my Facebook). [b]They took my contact information and said they'd get back to me today with an Official Position.[/b]

In the midst of this back and forth I speculated with them on her answer as likely to be "Yes" considering the fact that Sen Feinstein was President of the San Francisco Supervisors Office when both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were brutally gunned down in the San Francisco City Hall by former Supervisor Dan White. She's the one who discovered Harvey's body.

Although that was years ago, I could understand why her office might want to be double certain about getting her answer right. We'll see what she says.

Lastly I called [b]Congressman Maxine Waters[/b] Office in DC, and received a busy signal. I then called her local office and after attempting to grapple with the question in her own opinion the staffer said "there might be some circumstances where..?" I asked "So that not an unequivocal "Yes' is it?" Ultimately like Fienstein's Office they suggested I talk to the Press Office in DC. A staffer picked up when I called back to DC the second time and I presented the question. Ultimate the answer was..

[b]"There are no circumstances where violence is called for"[/b] (which is admittedly a paraphrase, but I took as a "[b]Yes[/b]")

That answer didn't come from the Press Office, but I'll take it for now. I had short conversation after this point about various incidents which have occurred at the Capital, and after admitting that things had recently "calmed down" it was clear that their is an edge of fear on Capital Hill.

"We hope that Law Enforcement is able to protect us all, but all it takes is that one lone person that no one can predict..." he said.

Amen to that.

So while I'm waiting for the Call Back from Senator Fienstein I'm asking you all to do the same thing. Call your Representatives and Post Back their response to this question - I'll tally the answers and post them on the new [a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Democratic-Non-Violence-Project/116830241662091"]Democratic Non-Violence Facebook[/a] Page and shows what the results are.

Do our Reps Denounce All Political Violence, or do they make excuses when it's politically adventagious the way the [a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/15/857662/-Rep.-Steve-King-Blows-Up-over-his-Justification-of-IRS-Attack"]Rep. Steve King[/a] did when he was asked about the plane flying into the IRS office in Austin Texas? Or try to excuse the attack the way the [a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/18/scott-brown-terrorism-yawn/"]Senator Scott Brown[/a] did.


Let's put them on record people.

Senate [a href="http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm"]Contact Info[/a]

[a href="http://www.house.gov"]House.Gov[/a]