D.C. Gun Crackdown Meets Community Resistance

Police Ask Residents To Submit To Voluntary Searches

March 24, 2008


WASHINGTON -- A crackdown on guns is meeting some resistance in the District.


Police are asking residents to submit to voluntary searches in exchange for amnesty under the District's gun ban. They passed out fliers requesting cooperation on Monday.

The program will begin in a couple of weeks in the Washington Highlands neighborhood of southeast Washington and will later expand to other neighborhoods. Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents or grandparents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.

Community leaders went door to door in Ward 8 Monday to advise residents not to invite police into their homes to search for weapons.

"Bad idea," said D.C. School Board member William Lockridge. "I think the people should not open your doors under any circumstances, don't even crack your door, unless someone has a warrant for your arrest."

Ron Hampton, of the Black Police Officers Association, said he doesn't expect many in the community to comply.

"This is one of those communities where the police even have problems getting information about crimes that are going on in the community, so to suggest, now, that the police have enough community capital in their hand that the community is going to cooperate with them, I'm not so sure that's a good idea," Hampton said.

If weapons are recovered, they will be tested and destroyed if they are not found to be linked to any other crimes.

A police spokeswoman said that if evidence of other crimes is found during voluntary searches, amnesty will be granted for that crime as well.

"Chief Lanier has been clear," Traci Hughes said. "Amnesty means amnesty."

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think

A new book by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed ought to have a profound and transforming influence on Americans' view of their government's confrontation with Islam. The book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, presents the results of six years of Gallup polling in the Muslim world between 2001 and 2007. "With the random sampling method that Gallup used," the authors explain, "results are statistically valid with a plus or minus 3-point margin of error. In totality, we surveyed a sample representing more than 90% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, making this the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done" (xi). Based on this data, Esposito and Mogahed have determined that Washington's conflict with Islam is "more about policy than principle" (xi). The pivotal findings of this massive study for U.S. national security pertain to the motivation of the Muslims who oppose the United States and the authors' claim that "[o]ne of the most important insights provided by Gallup's data is that the issues that drive radicals are also issues for moderates" (93).

"As we have seen in the [Gallup] data, resentment against the West comes from what Muslims perceive as the West's hatred and denigration of Islam; the Western belief that Arabs and Muslim are inferior; and their [Muslims'] fear of Western intervention, domination, or occupation" (141).
"As our [Gallup's] data has demonstrated, the primary cause of broad-based anger and anti-Americanism is not a clash of civilizations but the perceived effect of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world" (156).
"[The Gallup data shows that] contrary to what the 'They Hate Our Freedom' thesis might predict, Muslims do not recommend or insist upon changes to Western culture or social norms as the path to better [Western-Muslim] relations. … Rather they call on the West to show greater respect for Islam, and they emphasize policy-related issues [U.S. interventionism; unqualified support for Israel; and protection for authoritarian Arab regimes]" (159).
Over and over again, Esposito and Mogahed show the nearly complete absence among Muslims of a desire to destroy America's equality of opportunity, liberties, or democracy. Indeed, the Gallup data show that these are the aspects of U.S. society that Muslims most admire. "[T]he sentiments of vast majorities of those [Muslims] surveyed," the authors write, "[show] they admire the West's political freedoms and they value and desire greater self-determination" (31). But, of equal importance, Muslims do not believe that greater democracy and self-determination in the Muslim world require a Western-like separation of church and state. "Poll data show," Esposito and Mogahed explain, "that large majorities of respondents in the countries surveyed cite the equal importance of Islam and democracy as essential to the quality of their lives and the future progress of the Muslim world" (35). And, again, these findings are common to those the authors refer to as moderates and radicals, as well as to male and female respondents (48).

The Gallup data also show that Muslims make a keen distinction between modernity and Westernization. The surveys found that Muslims have a profound respect and admiration for the West's technology and for its work ethic; both are regarded as tools of modernity and avenues of social and economic progress for Muslims (p. 97). Having presented this finding, however, the authors warn it must not be taken as eagerness for Westernization. "[W]hile acknowledging and admiring many aspects of Western democracy," the authors write," those [Muslims] surveyed do not favor wholesale adoption of Western models of democracy … few respondents associate 'adopting Western values' with Muslim political and economic progress." Perhaps the most counterintuitive result of the Gallup data for Western readers will be findings that the ostensibly degraded cultural status of women in the West is one of the things most despised by Muslims of both genders (110) ; that "the data simply do not support the persistent popular perception in the West that Muslim women can't wait to be liberated from their culture and adopt the ways of the West" (110); and that there are no "systemic differences in many [Muslim] countries between males and females in their support for Sharia as the only source of legislation" (48).

The work of Esposito and Mogahed establishes a solid empirical base for refuting the contentions of U.S. political leaders in both parties that "Muslims hate us for who we are not for what we do." But will it do the trick? Previously, Robert Pape's empirical study Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism demonstrated that U.S. intervention in the Muslim world is a key generator of suicide attacks on U.S. interests, and Marc Sageman's quantitative study Understanding Terror Networks politely shredded our leaders' claims that poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment cause terrorism – but the they-hate-our-freedoms chorus still chants on. Indeed, after these books were written, Norman Podhoretz and George Weigel published neoconservative tomes that not only ignored the work of Pape and Sageman, but also scourged their countrymen for being too stupid to see that all U.S. interventions abroad are saintly and only medieval Islamofascists could oppose them. On no other foreign policy issue since the Cold War's end has the truth been so easy to establish on the basis of hard facts but so hard for Americans to see – primarily because their leaders eagerly distort or ignore the truth.

The reality accurately presented by Esposito, Mogahed, Pape, and Sageman – as well as by Dr. Ron Paul – has never eluded Osama bin Laden, however. Five years before Gallup even started collecting its data, bin Laden knew that U.S. foreign policy effectively united the Muslim world's moderates and radicals in anti-U.S. hatred, and that when he defied Washington and attacked U.S. interests because of those policies he both drew and grew support for his jihad against America. The conclusions of my own books about bin Laden's thinking, words, and actions – which are largely corroborated by the findings of Who Speaks for Islam? – make it clear beyond a doubt that al-Qaeda's chief knows precisely what will sell wildly in the Muslim world and unite his brethren, as well as what will be rejected outright by U.S. leaders, with disastrous consequences for Americans.

Unfortunately, then, it seems unlikely that the fine book Who Speaks for Islam? will attract the attention, let alone change the mind, of any senior U.S. political leader. Under either party, Washington will maintain its now 40-year-old foreign policy status quo; it will keep intervening in the Muslim world; and it will continue telling Americans they are hated for who they are, not for what their government does. Ultimately, our bipartisan political elite will turn the United States into one enormous Israel, lethally deaf to the realities of our struggle with Islamists; arrogantly confidant of its pure intent and sure knowledge of God's will; and utterly dependent on inadequate military and intelligence options to fight a rising tide of hatred among 1.3 billion Muslims.

H. Clinton is lying according to many articles today

The news and blogs are full of Hillary lying about all kinds of things. Here is some headlines:

-------------------------------------------------


Hillary's Lies: Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia

FLASHBACK: New Criticism of First Lady In Final Travel Office Report

Shocker: Hillary Lied About China Briefings

Hillary Clinton Again Lies about Iraq

Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy

CBS Video Contradicts Clinton's Story

Why Conspiracy Theorists are NOT "CRAZY"

Sunday, March 23, 2008


ARE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS CRAZY?


Somehow I wish I'd never seen the VIDEO showing the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC7) in March 2006 because I haven't stopped thinking about it ever since. Up to that point I'd not given much thought to the explanation the United States government provided it's citizens for the events of that day because although I wouldn't say I "trusted the government" I wouldn't say I distrusted them either. But one day while traveling Jer the Ripper turned his laptop to face me and asked me to look at a video - he didn't tell me what it was. I watched and told him it looked like a building implosion - who hasn't seen a couple of those at least on television? He then told me that what I had seen was WTC7, a THIRD skyscraper that collapsed that evening - but wasn't hit by an airplane. I asked what the explanation was and why I hadn't seen this anywhere before? The explanation at the time was fire. Fire? To explain what I just saw in the video? Bullsh_t! I saw implosion no fire. Somebody must be mistaken I thought. So I started digging and found this site which shows a building implosion video and more and it looked exactly like the video of WTC7 collapsing. I dug more and found thisVIDEO of MIT engineer Jeff King analyzing video evidence of WTC1 and WTC 2 building collapses also concluding the U.S government explanation for their demise was also contrary to available evidence. Then questions about the Pentagon arose. Since then work has been done by Pilots for 911 truth demonstrating that the US government story about the plane that hit the Pentagon contradicts their own flight recorder data - video available on their site. Then more folks started to organize - like 911Blogger and PatriotsQuestion911 truth both linked on the right border of this blog. Visit Patriots and look at their records, accomplishments and reputations - these are serious people. After examining the links above and considering the evidence provided I wonder if you would agree that we don't know what happened. And if we don't know what happened we have to keep an open mind if we are to find the truth. And to find the truth we must consider all possible explanations - even if the explanation involves more than one person. And if the evidence points to crimes committed and those crimes were done by more than one person we must have a conspiracy on our hands. And if we have a conspiracy on our hands we have to accept that truth no matter how difficult; because decisions based on falsehoods, incorrect data, lies etc... lead to actions contrary to the desired outcome. That goes for individuals and nations.

10 reasons your taxes are going up

It doesn't matter who's elected president, the debt party's over

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

March 24, 2008

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Reason No. 1: "Most Americans have yet to feel any of the costs of the Iraq war," write Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes in an excerpt of their new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," in Vanity Fair. "The price in blood has been paid by members of the volunteer military. The price in treasure has been financed entirely by borrowing. Taxes have not been raised to pay for the war."
Well, folks, the party's over. Campaign rhetoric won't hide America's excesses, denial, incompetence and arrogance much longer. No matter who's elected, taxes will increase to cover massive debts. Greed has driven America's great economic engine into a "debt contagion" ditch with a recession, bear market, price inflation, and weak job and housing markets ... you bet your taxes will increase.
Yes, our five-year war was totally financed by borrowing. But unfortunately, "deficit spending gives the illusion that the laws of economics can be repealed. They cannot. Americans will have to pay for the war at some point -- and when they do, they will be paying not the Bush markdown but the full price," the authors say.
We've been mislead by Washington's Enron-style accounting that hides many costs:
Supplemental financing bills, outside the budget
No veterans health-care estimates included
No equipment replacement costs to restore our military
Nothing about increases in state and homeland security
The real cost isn't $800 billion, it's already $3 trillion. And still, it doesn't include ...
Interest on the ever-increasing $9.3 trillion federal debt
Damage to our credibility from a weak dollar
Out-of-control inflation in energy
And the brutal damage to Iraq and other Gulf states
Washington's hiding all that from us. We were sold a war-on-the-cheap, to cost a mere $50 billion to $60 billion, to be self-financed out of oil revenues. Today we're spending $50 billion every month! This war is already an economic disaster for America and the bill's still coming due.
Still, we know there's strong opposition to taxes. But can a new president change much? Certainly not with two-thirds of the budget in untouchable entitlements and interest costs. Besides, Washington's not run by our 537 elected officials but by 35,000 lobbyists. And after the elections, all 35,537 will still be part of a conspiracy that hates change and loves to spend the $3 trillion Federal budget.
Mark my words: Taxes will (must!) be increased to recover from years of excessive spending, accumulating deficits and future earmarks. A new president may expose the problems but without Congressional restraint the taxpayers will get stuck paying "the full price."
Frankly, since both parties are mired in narrow ideologies, it's questionable whether either can manage a $15 trillion GDP economy. Read "Mismanagement 101," Dan Gross's Newsweek column: "As oil hovered near $100 a barrel, President Bush complained to OPEC about high oil prices. OPEC president Chakib Khelil responded acidly that crude's remarkable run had nothing to do with the reluctance of Persian Gulf nations to pump oil, and everything to do with the 'mismanagement of the U.S. economy.'" And our heavy reliance on borrowing keeps making it even more difficult for the next president.
But unfortunately, even though the party's over, that $3 trillion war debt is just a fraction of America's out-of-control debt which is bigger than the official $9.3 trillion federal debt. It's reason No. 1 taxes are going up.
Here are another nine problems increasing our government's debt and adding pressures for new tax hikes. I'm sure you can think of many others:
2. America's new Wall Street welfare program
This one's scary. For the first time in almost a century, the Fed's bailing out the investment bankers, those wild speculators who got us in this mess -- bailed out while two million homeowners face foreclosures and increasing interest rates.
The real sinners are free to sin again! Like J.P. Morgan Chase's $2 -- now $10 -- freebie of Bear Stern's equity, while the Fed stuck the taxpayers with billions of Bear's junk debt. Now Wall Street's greedy traders are free to start speculating again, playing in the same old $516 trillion high-risk derivatives casino. Bad move: The Fed's setting America up for an even bigger crash around 2012.
3. The Fed's nationalizing America's financial industry
Bear Sterns is a symptom of a systemic disease. As BusinessWeek put it: "Financiers preached the free-market gospel and pocketed unheard-of sums of money, yet when times got tough they called for a government bailout."
The Fed's dealing with America like a third-world banana republic, effectively nationalizing our financial industry! Wall Street's speculators have over $200 billion in junk write-offs. But like the government accounting tricks hiding war costs, Wall Street has also been inflating junk asset values and ginning up profits. And now the Fed's even helping them mask losses to prevent panic. Eventually this PR stunt will cut Wall Street's future earnings and increase taxes.
4. Huge resistance to cutting social and entitlement programs
Lobbyists like AARP will fight all cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security entitlements, even though those unfunded benefits will balloon to $50 trillion to $65 trillion within a generation. Economists say solving this problem will take Draconian cuts of 40% in benefits or tax increases of 40%. If we don't, entitlements will consume the entire budget in a generation. Untouchable near-term: Ergo, minimal cuts, higher taxes.
5. America's pork barrel lobbying machine
The Washington Post says lobbying is "Washington's biggest business." All those 35,000 lobbyists will be around for the entire 2009-2012 first term of the next president, and all screaming for government handouts. The Democrats need them. And while McCain promises to veto earmarks, his campaign's inner circle is made up of special interest lobbyists, ostensibly working for "free."
Expect little change. Lobbyists earn big bucks squeezing megabucks out of the federal budget, and your taxes pay the bills.
6. White House's free market nonaction policies
"We're on top of it," said the President in his St. Patrick's Day speech at the New York Economics Club, as if the credit meltdown had little effect on the economy. The Treasury secretary even got a Katrina-style "great job, Hank" for working one whole weekend to magically fix the crisis.
Unfortunately, the Treasury and the Fed are following the same playbook that pushed the 1970s economy into a long, deep recession. Pimco's Bill Gross says we need an aggressive Rooseveltian fiscal package. No chance. This administration only knows a free market (for business) and tax cuts (for the top).
7. Aging infrastructure: roads, bridges, water, sewer, etc.
Imagine taking that $50 billion monthly cost of fighting and rebuilding Iraq and shifting it to upgrading our own highways, hospitals, power, sewer and water plants. Dream on. Yet our deterioration continues and deferred maintenance only works so long. Expect higher gas taxes, plus sizeable cutbacks in state and local services, or general tax increases.
8. Paradigm shift: consumer spending vs. consumer savings
In one generation our savings rate declined below zero. Policymakers favored a consumer-driven economy, capital formation fell and debt piled up. Meanwhile, consumers took a cue from an out-of-control "spend and borrow" government piling up huge deficits.
9. Recession reality replacing arrogant optimism
The past five years the Wall Street Bubble Machine relied on an artificially low 1% Fed rate to create the housing boom and then the subprime-credit meltdown. Meanwhile our optimism and faith in capitalism sank with all the phony asset values and stock prices concocted by Wall Street ... and it'll happen again ... because Wall Street's relentless, all-consuming greed is setting up the economy to crash and burn again, all too soon ... and the taxpayer will pick up the tab ... again.
10. Now your turn, what's your top reason taxes will increase?
Seriously, you tell us, what did we miss? Or do you honestly believe we can "stay the course" and not increase taxes? If so, tell us how. Tell us why we're wrong in saying: "No matter who's the next president, your taxes are going up." Add your comments.

Clinton 'misspoke' over Bosnia sniper claims

Hillary is starting to sound like Bush!!!


'Minor blip'
"I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.