In a recent OpEd piece for CNN , comedian and executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival, Dean Obeidallah, asks what type of nation the U.S. would be “under Rick Santorum’s Sharia law?” “Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan,” Obeidallah asserts. “Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, “Santorum Two” was out there telling anyone who would listen.” Below, Obeidallah offers what he believes a Santorum-lead America would look like: 1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist’s child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months. 2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declaredthat not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos. 3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal. 4. No porn! I’m not kidding. Santorum signed ”The Marriage Vow”pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president. Obeidallah says he sees “two Rick Santorums.” “The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me,” he begins. “‘Santorum One’ pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare. Then there’s ‘Santorum Two.’ This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I’m not.” The Palestinian-Italian-American comic maintains that “Santorum Two” truly “poses an existential threat to the separation of church and state,” and he hopes voters will “reject any attempts to move America closer to a becoming the Afghanistan of the Western Hemisphere.” Weigh in with your thoughts below.
**Written by Doug Powers New York University is no longer the only school offering OWS classes. The notion of competition seems so… capitalist… but there it is nonetheless: Columbia University is offering a new course on Occupy Wall Street next semester — sending upperclassmen and grad students into the field for full course credit. The class is taught by Dr. Hannah Appel, who boasts about her nights camped out in Zuccotti Park. As many as 30 students will be expected to get involved in ongoing OWS projects outside the classroom, the syllabus says. The class will be in the anthropology department and called “Occupy the Field: Global Finance, Inequality, Social Movement.” It will be divided between seminars at the Morningside Heights campus and fieldwork. On her blog, Appel defends OWS, arguing that “it is important to push back against the rhetoric of ‘disorganization’ or ‘a movement without a message’ coming from left, right and center.” The course syllabus is here (PDF). Graduate thesis topic: A Brief History of Up Twinkles and Down Twinkles. Hopefully the course also includes extra credit for an optional essay on the irony of going further into debt borrowing money to pay for a class that teaches students how to most effectively protest student loan debt . Or should we assume the class will be dramatically discounted from Columbia’s usual rates to avoid any hypocritical clash between Occupy Wall Street’s student loan philosophy and what Columbia charges to attend ? Update: Just got this Tweet wondering aloud how one would go about protesting the class. I’d suggest occupying the classroom. (h/t Gothamist and Big Government ) **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Original post:
Columbia University to Offer ‘Occupy 101′ Course
**Written by Doug Powers ***** “If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.” — Ronald Reagan ***** And if you want an absolute s*#tload of something, give bonuses on top of the subsidies. From Judicial Watch : In its quest to promote taxpayer-funded entitlement programs, the Obama Administration has actually rewarded one state with a $5 million bonus for its efficiency in adding food-stamp recipients to already bulging rolls. It’s part of the administration’s campaign to eradicate “food insecure households” by improving access and increasing participation in the government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Incidentally, the program was recently changed to SNAP to eliminate the stigma that comes with a name like food stamps. Just a few months ago the federal agency that administers the program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), launched a multi-million-dollar initiative to recruit more food-stamp participants even though the number of recipients has skyrocketed in the last few years. Could this be why the number of food-stamp beneficiaries in Oregon has increased dramatically in the last few years? Since 2008 the state has seen a 60% boost in the number of food-stamp recipients, which means that more than 780,000 people (one out of five Oregonians) get groceries compliments of Uncle Sam. If that’s too hard to believe, check out the press release from the Oregon Department of Human Services announcing the $5 million bonus ( PDF ). The ODHS also wrote in the press release that earlier in the year the state received another federal award of $1.5 million for “making accurate payments of food stamp benefits to clients.” Does that simply mean they got another one and a half million bucks for “not screwing up”? I’m surprised the government’s now referring to those on food stamps as “clients” when “stimulus recipients” better reflects the current attitude. According to the state, one in five Oregonians is on food stamps. How much will the federal bonus be for making that two of every five? Maybe we’ll find out someday soon. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See more here:
Oregon Gets $5 Million Federal Bonus for Signing Up More Food Stamp ‘Clients’
**Written by Doug Powers Stand down, Green Helmets ! From Forbes by way of Yahoo News : NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.” In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. So maybe we won’t have to spend $76 trillion to “green” the world? From the report ( PDF ): Yet, as seen in Figure 2, we are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models. In all fairness, I wouldn’t expect computer models to be spot-on simulations of the real climate system, but in honest research I would expect computer models to, at least once in a while, not always coincidentally err on the side of the equation that just happens to make Al Gore richer and serve as “evidence” that the UN should be further funded to police the impending catastrophe. Computer models of possible hurricane trajectories usually contain an array of possibilities based on a number of variables, but if the UN’s climates models were used, Hurricane Global Warming would always be poised for a direct hit on wherever the most wealth can be transferred. And in related “Al Gore hardest hit” news … JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. On Thursday, Ruch’s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference. The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’ questioning of Gleason in January. On September 14th, Al Gore wants us to connect the dots , but we don’t really need to wait until then. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Read this article:
Analysis of NASA Satellite Data Suggests UN Climate Models are Full of Hot Air
LONDON (The Blaze/AP) — A group of computer hackers claims to have breached NATO security and accessed hordes of restricted material. The group called Anonymous says it would be “irresponsible” to publish most of the material it stole from NATO but that it is sitting on about 1 gigabyte of data. Anonymous posted a PDF file Thursday on its Twitter page showing what appeared to be a document headed “NATO Restricted:”
The first page of one of the alleged leaked documents.
Read more from the original source:
Hacker Group: We‘ve Breached NATO’s Website & Gov‘t and Businesses ’Are Our Enemy’
**Written by Doug Powers The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — 4th Amendment to the US Constitution The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment needs a disclaimer when it comes to officers of the law acting unlawfully (at which point, by definition, wouldn’t they cease to be “officers of the law”?). Bruce McQuain has the details : That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious : Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle. From the ruling ( PDF ): David, Justice. A jury convicted Richard Barnes of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Barnes contests that the trial court‘s failure to advise the jury on the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers constituted reversible error and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We further hold that the evidence was sufficient and affirm Barnes‘s convictions. Also from the ruling: We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. In other words, “in the old days if an officer unlawfully entered your home and arrested you, you were pretty much screwed but now you have ways to prove your innocence and file a complaint against the officer, so just shut up and tolerate the initial injustice for the safety of everybody involved.” But what if the officer entering unlawfully uses the opportunity to plant evidence to justify his or her unlawful entry and render it artificially lawful? We could play those back and forth games all day, and that’s why the 4th Amendment is there. Two justices opposed the majority, citing the 4th: Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson dissented, saying the court’s decision runs counter to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.” So Hoosier Staters can now be arrested and charged with “unlawfully resisting an unlawful entry”? Bizarre. **Written by Doug Powers Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See the original post here:
Indiana Supreme Court: Resisting an Unlawful Entry Into Your Home is… Unlawful
Map via Frank Jacobs, Strange Maps blog/Big Think It happened with immigration. It happened with health care. And now, thank goodness, it is happening with the Obama land grabs. States are rising up to challenge federal abuses. More power to them. I’ve been reporting on the stealth Obama land and ocean grabs for the past year now. Quick review: Last August, I told you about the “Great Outdoors Initiative” to lock up more open spaces through executive order. This came on top on top of a separate, property-usurping initiative exposed by GOP Rep. Robert Bishop and Sen. Jim DeMint earlier this spring. According to an internal, 21-page Obama administration memo, 17 energy-rich areas in 11 states have been targeted as potential federal “monuments.” The Obama War on the West is a War on Jobs that extends from land to sea based on politicized junk science by executive fiat and czar evasion. In November, I noted the expansive Interior Secretary Ken Salazar/NLCS designation . And in February, I mentioned the federal wild lands grab slipped through by Salazar during the Christmas season lame duck session. Late last week, the state of Utah filed a lawsuit to stop the wild lands gambit: The lawsuit challenges Salazar’s Secretarial Order 3310, which gives broad latitude to the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management to re-inventory the public lands within its purview for potential wild land characteristics. Herbert said this upends an ongoing and successful process to designate wilderness land already in place in the state. “This order puts in jeopardy all that work, all that effort,” he said. “It says, essentially, let’s have a do-over.” Herbert said it would also hinder economic development in the areas in question — which could amount to “tens of millions of acres,” according to Chief Deputy Attorney General John Swallow. Currently, 1.6 million acres in Utah have been designated as wilderness. Herbert was joined at the news conference by Swallow, county commissioners from Uintah and Washington counties, state public lands policy coordinator John Harja and environmental adviser Ted Wilson. There are currently wilderness designation policies and programs in place in Washington and Uintah counties and others, with other counties planning to follow. Now, Herbert said the federal government seeks to use the order to start from scratch and to do so without going through the proper channels. “This secretarial order was created out of thin air,” Herbert said. “There was no statutory order to it. It’s counterproductive to efforts we made in good faith. This is not good for Utah, not good for America.” Alaska is joining the challenge: Gov. Sean Parnell is going to court against the federal government again, this time in a Utah case that challenges the Bureau of Land Management’s “Wild Lands” policy…Parnell’s office put out a press release late Friday saying Alaska would join Utah in challenging the legality of the program. In the press release, Parnell contends the new policy would create potential costs and delays in permits for development on BLM lands and would override existing land use plans. In Alaska, according to the motion filed by the state seeking to join Utah’s lawsuit, BLM manages more than 72 million acres — more than in any other state. Perhaps the biggest bone of contention is over the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska which falls under BLM management. But the agency also oversees mining districts and other resource development areas. Here’s to more states rising up and unifying (unity!) against the enviro-zealots’ War on the West. *** Via Gabriel Malor, here’s the PDF of Utah’s complaint.
Read the original:
States rising up to fight Obama land grab: Alaska, Utah file suit
Yesterday, I brought you up to speed on GOP Sen. Charles Grassley’s fight with DOJ over its Project Gunrunner stonewalling. Today, GOP Rep. Darrell Issa warns that DOJ’s intransigence could lead to contempt proceedings. He released a letter this morning to acting ATF chief Kenneth Melson. You can read the PDF version here . The key passage: Say it again: “As such, officials at the highest levels of the Department more than likely made these decisions…” Decisions that cost at least two American law enforcement officials their lives. Like I said two months ago: “Welcome to Project Gunrunner. Prepare for another Justice Department whitewash.”
Original post:
Project Gunrunner document drop: Issa blasts DOJ stonewalling, threatens contempt proceedings
What’s the definition of a “shotgun?” According to Dictionary.com it’s “a smoothbore gun for firing small shot to kill birds and small quadrupeds, though often used with buckshot to kill larger animals.” For the gun enthusiasts, that’s only partly true, as there is also the option of using slugs. But what if there’s another addition that will soon be added to the definition? How about, illegal. In a series of fascinating, and eerie, posts over at the blog Beregond’s Bar (and linked on Redstate.com ), author “Tom” pens a four-part series on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and their new campaign to change the definition of the term “shotgun.” A change, based on a recent study ,* that could soon make some of them illegal. But as Tom points out, the implications for all guns are chilling. Below are excerpts from the series. Click on the appropriate link to read more. Part 1 , which focuses on changing the term “sporting use” in order to ban certain shotguns: The Obama administration is seeking once again to do via regulation what they would never be able to do via legislation. This time shotguns are in the crosshairs, specifically certain popular imported weapons. Sporting use is one of the three main thrusts of gun control efforts in America. The other two are racism and those who openly advocate complete bans except for military and police. (The complete ban advocates often hide under cover of sporting use, but that and the racist history of gun control are topics for another day. Sporting use was how the original distinction was made about what weapons would be subject to a special tax in the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, and again in Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The congressional power to tax was used selectively to make ownership of weapons the government didn’t like burdensome and expensive. This was gun control via the back door, as even the ATF admits . As would become the pattern, politicians found that actually dealing with crime and criminals was difficult and expensive. Blaming guns and passing a law to look like they were doing something about it was much simpler. Part 2 , which notes that the administration and the ATF’s definition of “sporting use” includes a list of things that cannot apply to such use. Things that are common in hunting and self-defense: In this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking to master the definition of the term “sporting use” to “traditional” sports, things similar to what might have been found in 1934 when the Treasury Department first began regulating firearms. The ATF “ Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns ” (PDF) limits “sporting purpose.” However, consistent with past court decisions and Congressional intent, the working group recognized hunting and other more generally recognized or formalized competitive events similar to the traditional shooting sports of trap, skeet, and clays. In order to decide what shotguns fit the “sporting purpose” definition the study comes up with a list of characteristics that aren’t sporting. Nobody has yet taken to bayoneting deer or skeet as far as I know, so I’m not going to raise a big stink about bayonet lugs being on the list of features that aren’t particularly suited for sporting purposes. (Please stop shouting that the Constitution of the United States says nothing about “sporting purpose.” We’ll look at why the “sporting purpose” rule violates the constitution in Part 3 .) One major problem (aside from the constitution) is that many of the features the ATF study group settled on make a shotgun particularly useful for self defense, especially home defense. Here are the characteristics that the study has decided are unsuitable for sporting use: (1) Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks; (2) bayonet lugs; (3) flash suppressors; (4) magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine; (5) grenade-launcher mounts; (6) integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel); (7) light enhancing devices; (8) excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller); (9) excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth); (10) forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand. Some of these features, such as folding stocks and larger capacity magazines clearly are useful in sports if you include practical shooting sports. Part 3 , which looks at how “sporting use” stacks up to the Constitution and how it came into use: But there is a far more basic objection that must be raised to this new attempt at regulatory gun ban- Nowhere in the constitution of the United States is there anything about a “sporting purpose.” The second amendment says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Like all rights of Americans, the rights exist because you are a person. The Constitution is a contract we have with the central government to protect those rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. One of the enumerated rights is the right to keep and bear arms. Nary a “sporting purpose” in sight in the entire document. So where did it come from? And finally, Part 4 , which shows that the ATF’s “sporting use” definition puts all guns, not just certain shotguns, at risk of being outlawed: One factor that jumps out from the current ATF study is that it differs from the Clinton gun ban in a critical way. The Clinton ban looked at guns and said if it could accept a high capacity magazine and had any 2 other characteristics then it was banned. Thus you could have a magazine and a pistol grip, or a magazine and night sights, and still be legal. Few people missed having a bayonet lug, and grenade launchers and grenades had essentially been banned from civilian hands since the NFA became law in 1934. The current study says that any ONE item on a list, including a magazine that holds more than five rounds or a place to attach a flashlight so you can see the burglar in your home, and the gun is banned. So the problem doesn’t end with shotguns. The current study refers to the conclusions drawn in prior ATF studies of rifles in 1989 and 1998, and handguns in 1968. It also draws on the NFA and the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968) to justify the “sporting purpose” test, and the narrow interpretation that the ATF places on the test. The justifications are all linked together, like a knitted sweater. Pull on the piece of yarn called “imported shotguns” and you find when it’s unraveled enough that you’re tugging on the “domestic shotguns” yarn. Only now the “imported rifle” bit of yarn is hanging loose, just begging for someone to tug on it. Unravel that a bit and you reach “domestic rifles.” A similar bit of unraveling is likely to happen with the piece of yarn labelled “handgun.” Each piece is well worth the time it takes to read it. Meanwhile, the ATF is taking comments on its study. Tom lets you know how here . But here’s the catch: in order to let the ATF know what you think, you have to give it your mailing address. Interesting. *According to Tom, the study “spends a lot of time showing that hunting, trap and skeet, and target shooting are sports, but plinking and practical shooting sports are not REALLY sports, and therefore guns that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to those sports shouldn’t be allowed into the country.
See more here:
Could Your Shotgun Soon be Outlawed? Maybe, if the ATF Has its Way
