SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)3/31/2011 12:48:01 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
U.S. Gives Obama Donor $500 Mil For “Green” Projects

Thu, 03/31/2011
judicialwatch.org

One of President Obama’s top fundraisers has been rewarded with more than half a billion dollars in stimulus money for “green” projects and a coveted adviser position at the federal agency that regulates his highly profitable business ventures.
It’s the very cycle of money, influence and access that Obama vowed to break
when he came to Washington, according to the investigative journalism group that broke the story this week. Not only has the president’s money man benefited from the astounding sums of cash the administration has dedicated to “clean energy” startups, he also has extraordinary access to the White House and serves as an adviser to the cabinet official (Energy Secretary Steven Chu) who regulates his industry.
The prolific Democratic fundraiser, Steve Westly, worked in the Jimmy Carter Administration and was once a public official in California where he currently operates a lucrative “green” business (Westly Group) that’s boomed in just a few years. which is doling out around $35 billion to politically-connected businesses that help The Westly Group has raked in more than half a billion dollars in loans, grants or stimulus money from the Department of Energy reduce pollution.
A frequent White House visitor Westly is also a member of a government advisory board on energy policy, which means he actually “advises” Energy Secretary Chu, the administration official in charge of distributing the agency’s green startup cash. The money is supposed to help clean technology firms expand in order to meet Obama’s goal of lowering dependence on foreign oil.
More than 90% of the companies that apply for the federal dollars are rejected, yet Westly has easily secured the public funding for three of his firms. The government aid is important because it lends companies credibility and helps attract investors. Other Obama donors have also received big chunks of federal dollars for their clean energy endeavors, including another California billionaire who serves on the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and an Oklahoma oil magnet who bundled tens of thousands of dollars for his 2008 campaign.
Obama must keep his top fundraisers happy because he will need their services—and cash—in 2012. Westly is one of about 50 “bundlers” who raised more than half a million dollars for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Undoubtedly, Westly is expected to step up to the plate in 2012 so Uncle Sam will likely continue filling his coffers with cash for innovative “green” projects.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)3/31/2011 1:04:54 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Huffington Post Refuses to Address Maher's Contributor Status After Vulgar Attacks on Palin

By Noel Sheppard | March 31, 2011
newsbusters.org

Following its controversial decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from publishing articles at its front page, the Huffington Post has found itself in quite a pickle now that one of its regular contributors, comedian Bill Maher, made disgustingly vulgar references to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
As NewsBusters previously reported, Breitbart made some comments about President Obama's former green czar Van Jones that precipitated the following hypocritical statement from HuffPo spokesman Mario Ruiz last Thursday (readers are warned of vulgar content in full article):

The Huffington Post is committed to fostering a lively and often provocative debate about the issues of the day and encourages a wide range of voices from all perspectives to participate. Andrew Brietbart’s [sic] false ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched. As a result, we will no longer feature his posts on the front page.
He is welcome to continue publishing his work on HuffPost provided it adheres to our editorial guidelines, as the two posts he published on HuffPost did -- guidelines that include a strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks. Our decision today recognizes that placing posts on the front page is an editorial call that elevates some posts over others, and is an indication of how seriously we take these judgment calls.
Just what were Breitbart's supposedly offensive comments?

Van Jones is a commie punk. He was exposed to a great extent because of the hard journalism that was done at my website, that exposed him as a guy who was an unvetted liability to the Obama administration. He was forced to step down because of my journalistic work. [...]
I believe that Van Jones, and Color of Change, and ACORN poison the black community with propaganda that divides this country. Van Jones is a human toxin, ACORN was a human toxin. These are poisonous, venomous forces within the American experience. I will expose them like the cockroaches that they are.
By contrast, Maher on March 18 called Palin a "twat" and on March 27 called her a "cunt."

Which is worse: calling a man a "commie punk" or a woman a "cunt"? One would certainly think the latter, yet HuffPo has yet to comment.
With this in mind, I sent co-founder Arianna Huffington and editor Roy Sekoff the following email message Tuesday:
Ms. Huffington and Mr. Sekoff:
Noel Sheppard here from NewsBusters. I'm wondering if Bill Maher calling former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a "twat" and a "cunt" violates the Huffington Post's "tenets of debate and civil discourse" that Mario Ruiz noted in his statement concerning Andrew Breitbart's banning from your front page.
One would think such vulgar slurs are far worse than anything Breitbart said to the Daily Caller concerning Van Jones.
Is Maher going to be banned from your front page? When are you planning on notifying your readers of this decision, and if not, why not?
Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org
After a number of hours went by without a response, I sent another one to Huffington and Sekoff but separately this time:
Ms. Huffington,

This is Noel Sheppard, the Associate Editor of NewsBusters trying for the second time to get a comment from you regarding Bill Maher being a front page contributor to the Huffington Post. As you know, in the past twelve days, Maher has called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a “twat” and a “cunt.”

Your Mario Ruiz in his statement concerning Andrew Breitbart’s banning from the Post’s front page said Breitbart’s comments in the Daily Caller about Van Jones had violated the “tenets of debate and civil discourse.” We at NewsBusters would like an explanation as to why Maher’s attacks on Palin aren’t at least as bad as Breitbart’s comments regarding Jones. As we see Maher’s offense as far worse, given the Post’s rules, we would like to know either why you disagree or when Maher is going to be banned from your front page.

We would like a response concerning this matter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org
Having still not received a response, on Wednesday morning I sent a roughly similar version of the following to HuffPo reporters Jason Linkins, Sam Stein, and the spokesman that issued the Breitbart statement, Mario Ruiz:
Mr. Ruiz,

This is Noel Sheppard, the Associate Editor of NewsBusters trying to get a comment from you regarding Bill Maher being a front page contributor to the Huffington Post.

As you know, in the past twelve days, Maher has called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a “twat” and a “cunt.” In your statement concerning Andrew Breitbart’s banning from the Post’s front page, you said Breitbart’s comments about Van Jones in the Daily Caller violated the “tenets of debate and civil discourse.”

We at NewsBusters would like an explanation as to why Maher’s attacks on Palin aren’t at least as bad as Breitbart’s comments regarding Jones. As we see Maher’s offense as far worse, given the Post’s rules, we would like to know either why you disagree or when Maher is going to be banned from your front page.

We would like a response concerning this matter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org
Later in the day Wednesday, having only received a response from Linkins who advised me to contact Ruiz, I sent the following to the entire group:
Arianna Huffington et al,
I have been trying for several days to get an answer concerning the Huffington Post’s position on Bill Maher as a contributor given his recent vulgar attacks on Sarah Palin and your decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from your front page due to comments he made regarding Van Jones. To date, no one has responded.
NewsBusters is going to be running a piece concerning this matter Thursday and would like an opinion about it from someone within your organization. If I don’t hear back, we have no choice but to run the piece without your input while advising our readers of your silence.
Sincerely,
Noel Sheppard/NewsBusters.org
Sadly, as of 11:00 AM, I still have no response, not even from HuffPo spokesman Ruiz. Is this the kind of transparency we can expect from AOL/Huffington Post in the future?
Of course, I realize Arianna et al are in a very tough spot. They made what was clearly an absurd statement about "tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched" when everyone in the industry knows their website is filled with hateful rhetoric and ad hominem attacks against conservatives on almost a daily basis.
The laughter at Ruiz's statement throughout the blogosphere on both sides of the aisle was deafening.
Complicating matters further was one of their popular contributors the day after Breitbart was canned making a vulgar slur at Palin and another one nine days later.
As most people know, Huffington has been friends with Maher for years. She was a regular guest on his Comedy Central program "Politically Incorrect" appearing in an ongoing gag with Al Franken called "Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows."
Maybe more importantly, Maher is a darling of the Left. Would Huffington dare do anything to him like she did to Breitbart?
Unfortunately, not doing so totally invalidates the reason given by Ruiz for Breitbart's demotion.
No wonder I didn't get any replies to my email messages as I'm sure these folks hope this matter is going to just go away as quickly as possible - but they shouldn't count on it.
Maher's vitriolic attacks have been in the sights of writers on both sides of the aisle for years. The folks at HuffPo should know that any time one of his comments crosses the "tenets of debate and civil discourse" line they have set for their contributors, the blogosphere will be asking why he's still a front page contributor at their website.
More importantly, their continued silence regarding this glaring hypocrisy will act to reduce whatever journalistic integrity and credibility they claim to strive for potentially leading AOL and its shareholders to seriously question their investment.

Read more: newsbusters.org



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)3/31/2011 1:38:28 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Berkshire's Sokol Quits After Lubrizol Purchases

By ERIK HOLM And SERENA NG MARCH 30, 2011
online.wsj.com

David Sokol, long considered by outsiders to be the most likely candidate to succeed Warren Buffett, resigned from Berkshire Hathaway Inc. after purchasing shares of a company he suggested Mr. Buffett buy.

Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chief executive and chairman, said in a statement Wednesday that Mr. Sokol had told him he owned shares in the chemical company, Lubrizol Corp., when they first discussed the deal in January. Mr. Buffett said "neither Dave nor I feel his Lubrizol purchases were in any way unlawful" and weren't a factor in his decision to resign.

Instead, Mr. Buffett said Mr. Sokol wrote in a letter of resignation on March 28 that he wanted to "invest my family's resources in such a way as to create enduring equity value and hopefully an enterprise which will provide opportunity for my descendents and funding for my philanthropic interests."

Mr. Sokol purchased 2,300 shares of Lubrizol on Dec. 14, which he then sold on Dec. 21, Mr. Buffett said. He then bought 96,060 shares in early January with an order to pay no more than $104 a share.

Berkshire said March 14 that it had agreed to acquire Lubrizol for $9 billion, or $135 a share.

Mr. Sokol's stake may have earned a profit of about $3 million in less than three months.


In an interview Wednesday evening, Mr. Sokol said his resignation "had absolutely nothing to do" with Lubrizol and said the company elected to disclose his trades before they appeared in a proxy statement in the coming weeks.

On Lubrizol, Mr. Sokol said he "had no inside information and no knowledge if Warren would be interested or not in the company" at the time he bought the shares or when he brought the company to Mr. Buffett's attention. He said Mr. Buffett didn't ask him about the stake he held and found out its details only when Mr. Sokol submitted the information to Berkshire's general counsel who was helping to prepare regulatory filings for the deal.

Nothing 'Embarrassing'
Read the Berkshire Hathaway Press Release

View Document

"There's nothing in there that's embarrassing," Mr. Sokol said, though he acknowledged "it would look bad 60 days later" if his stake in Lubrizol was disclosed in public filings and Berkshire hadn't said anything about it. "We wanted it all out." He said the analysis he did on Lubrizol was "done off public information."

In the statement, Mr. Buffett wrote: "Dave's purchases were made before he had discussed Lubrizol with me and with no knowledge of how I might react to his idea." Mr. Buffett said he learned of the extent of the stock purchases shortly before beginning a trip to Asia on March 19.

Mr. Buffett didn't immediately respond to a request for comment left with an assistant late Wednesday afternoon.

A regulatory filing detailing the Lubrizol purchase indicated last week that Mr. Sokol identified Lubrizol as a potential acquisition and took the lead in early negotiations to buy the company. Mr. Sokol plucked Lubrizol from a list of 18 chemical companies that bankers at Citigroup Global Markets had compiled in December 2010 as possible acquisitions at Mr. Sokol's request, according to the filing.

Mr. Sokol met with Lubrizol's chief executive, James Hambrick, in January to discuss the corporate culture at the two companies, and told him a Berkshire takeover offer would be contingent on Mr. Hambrick's agreeing to stay on as CEO. It was after Mr. Hambrick and his board had agreed to move forward with takeover talks that Mr. Buffett took the lead, the filing said.

"As late as January 24, I sent Dave a short note indicating my skepticism about making an offer for Lubrizol and my preference for another substantial acquisition for which MidAmerican had made a bid. Only after Dave reported on the January 25 dinner conversation with James Hambrick did I get interested in the acquisition of Lubrizol," Mr. Buffett wrote.

Securities Inquiry?
A spokesman for the Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on whether the agency was investigating the matter.

Buffett on Sokol

David Yellen

Read a collection of Buffett's comments about Sokol over the years

However, Jacob Frenkel, a partner with law firm Shulman Rogers and former SEC enforcement lawyer, said, "Anytime a corporate insider engages in trading activity in advance of [an acquisition] announcement there is fodder for inquiry" from the SEC.

"By no means does that suggest that there was a violation," Mr. Frenkel added. "In fact, I have had cases as a defense lawyer where the timing of trading appeared dubious but the facts clearly supported the absence of any violation."

Both Mr. Frenkel and Ron Geffner, another former SEC attorney, said Mr. Sokol's stock purcahses may have triggered an inquiry from regulators.

Meanwhile, Mr. Sokol's resignation throws into question the fate of Berkshire's succession plan, one of the most widely watched boardroom dramas in corporate America. Berkshire has said it has identified four executives at the company who could succeed Mr. Buffett. The company has never named them publicly, but Mr. Sokol has long been considered high on a short list.

Indeed, Mr. Sokol's early involvement in the deal had been considered further evidence that he had become an important lieutenant for Mr. Buffett in recent years. Mr. Buffett, 80, had already tapped Mr. Sokol to turn around Berkshire's NetJets unit and sent him to China to meet with executives at battery-maker BYD Inc. before investing in that company.

Other names that have emerged as potential replacements for Mr. Buffett include Ajit Jain, the head of Berkshire's reinsurance operation, and Matt Rose, the CEO of Berkshire' railroad, Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

Possible Reputational Hit
The resignation is a potential black eye for Mr. Buffett, who emphasizes character and integrity in his manager choices. The B shares of the conglomerate, one of the nation's biggest companies, declined 3.2% in after-hours trading.

"Mr. Buffett always tries to maintain the image of ethical conduct beyond questioning and reproach," Mr. Frenkel said. Had Mr. Sokol not resigned and continued in his role, "it would give rise to question, and when there is the withholding of information, even if there is no wrongdoing, it creates some underlying questioning or distrust that can undermine the relationship."

Mr. Sokol had been chairman of Berkshire's MidAmerican utility operations and chairman and CEO of its NetJets fractional plane business.

Mr. Buffett said Sokol had tried two other times in past years to resign. In his statement Wednesday, Mr. Buffett said Sokol's "contributions have been extraordinary," citing his work at MidAmerican and NetJets, which he described as "an operation that was destined for bankruptcy, absent Berkshire's deep pockets."

Greg Abel, the chief executive of MidAmerican, will become its chairman, Mr. Buffett said. Jordan Hansell, president of NetJets, will become its chairman and CEO.

—Matthias Rieker and Jamila Trindle contributed to this article.

Write to Erik Holm at erik.holm@dowjones.com and Serena Ng at serena.ng@wsj.com




To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)3/31/2011 3:02:03 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Not a Superior Type of Judge

Pajamas Media ^ | March 31, 2011 | Hans A. von Spakovsky
pajamasmedia.com

Should a lawyer who has participated in unprofessional conduct be awarded with a judgeship? Consider the nomination of Donna Murphy to be a superior court judge in the District of Columbia.
The president, of course, is responsible for nominating lawyers to be judges in our federal courts. But he is also responsible for picking the local judges with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, which is a federal enclave. However, those superior court nominations are approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.), not the Senate Judiciary Committee that approves nominations to all other federal courts.
Donna Murphy has spent almost her entire career in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. She started off as a trial lawyer and was eventually promoted to be a deputy chief in the Voting Section. It was while she was a supervisor there that she was involved in a case, Miller v. Johnson, which cost the American taxpayer almost $600,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Miller v. Johnson involved the Voting Section’s frivolous objection to a proposed legislative redistricting plan in Georgia. Not only was the objection thrown out, but the defendants were awarded a total of $597,000. A federal court found that the Section had no actual evidence of discrimination when it pursued this unwarranted lawsuit and instead tried to force the state of Georgia to implement a racially discriminatory “max-black” redistricting plan.
In fact, DOJ was acting at the direction of an ACLU attorney as if it were representing the ACLU instead of the American people. The court remarked that “the considerable influence of ACLU advocacy on the voting rights decisions of the United States Attorney General is an embarrassment. … It is surprising that the Department of Justice was so blind to this impropriety, especially in a role as sensitive as that of preserving the fundamental right to vote.”
The misbehavior of DOJ lawyers in the case was such that the court found their “professed amnesia [about their relationship with the ACLU attorney] less than credible.” There were “countless communications” between the ACLU and DOJ line attorneys including maps, telephone calls, mail and facsimiles, and yet the two trial attorneys on the case “lacked any significant memory” of those communications and couldn’t recall basic details of important meetings.
Murphy was not one of the trial attorneys who the court strongly suggested were lying under oath about their dealings with the ACLU. But she was the supervisor of those trial attorneys — which is even worse in many ways — and she is prominently listed as representing the Justice Department in this embarrassing decision issued by a federal district court at 864 F.Supp. 1354.
No supervisor reviewing the extensive internal file in this case could have possibly doubted that the trial lawyers’ professed amnesia was false testimony. Yet Murphy not only did nothing to remedy the situation, she was responsible as one of the counsels of record for presenting that false testimony to a federal district court, a disbarrable offense. And when she was supervising the lawyers working on the redistricting review before it ever got to court, she did nothing to stop the “inappropriate” dealings of DOJ with the ACLU, or to stop the racially discriminatory requirements being imposed by DOJ on Georgia.
Murphy also worked as the deputy chief of the Special Litigation Section (which is responsible for investigating allegations of wrongdoing by local police) in the Civil Rights Division. Her hostility to law enforcement was legendary in the Division when I worked there from 2001 to 2005. If Murphy is confirmed as a judge, there will never be a better time to be a drug dealer in D.C. Because Donna Murphy has never met a search that she would be unwilling to suppress.
As a deputy in the Special Litigation Section, Murphy would continually demand that law enforcement officials take steps that the law did not require. She had no practical experience whatsoever in law enforcement but consistently tried to force local police to conform to her own subjective standards – not the constitutional standards in the law. Murphy’s approach to enforcing the law and the demands she made on local police were extreme.
Murphy viewed the Special Litigation Section not as the federal prosecutorial agency tasked only with enforcing violations of the law, but as a regulatory agency of all police behavior, whether it violated the law or not. Based on her history in the Division, there is little doubt that Murphy will be a results-oriented judge, doing what she thinks is best from her own subjective policy perspective regardless of the applicable law.
Murphy is being rewarded with a judgeship despite condoning unprofessional behavior and misjudgments that cost the American taxpayer a great deal of money. Only in Washington would someone with such a work record as a government employee be promoted to become a judge. It is a sad comment on the qualities that President Obama believes are important for his judicial picks. And it is one that should concern not just the residents of the District of Columbia, but all Americans who believe in the rule of law.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) and a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)4/1/2011 11:11:31 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
What's the "Flicker" Uncle Sucker's Helping?

Townhall.com ^ | April 1, 2011 | Diana West
townhall.com

This week, the commander of NATO, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis, let the jihad out of the bag. He told the U.S. Senate that among the Libyan rebels -- you know, our guys, the ones on whose behalf we've fired off about $1 billion worth of ordinance at Libya -- "we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah."
That means the U.S. military is fighting on behalf of the flickers that took down the World Trade Center in 2001 and the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983.
Does anyone care?
Next question: Wouldn't we all salute if Stavridis had next told the Senate that, as a result of this heinous policy, which orders U.S. forces to participate in a mission to advance the cause of global jihad, he would be stepping down from his command in protest?
Sigh. Instead, Stavridis reassured the Senate, "We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces," he said.
Next question: Do I feel better?
The Daily Mail picked up the story, noting: "The comments have sparked an embarrassing diplomatic spat between NATO and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who disagreed that al-Qaida was involved in the rebel movement. `I would like to think I'm reading much of the same stuff and no,' Ms. Rice told Fox News when asked whether she had seen any evidence to support Stavridis' assessment."
No evidence. Not even a shimmer, according to Ms. Rice. That's funny. I've been reading, not intelligence reports, but regular news stories about the predilection for jihad among the people of eastern Libya, which is the seat of the rebellion, and which, according to a 2007 West Point study, sent more jihadis per capita to Iraq to fight American forces than any other region in the world. One of their military leaders, Abdel Hakim al-Hasidi, is reported to have fought for years in Afghanistan -- and, to be precise, that would have been against us and for bin Laden -- or so he used to brag, back a week or so ago when it wasn't politically risky.
Now the rebs are practically media-savvy, as the Independent discovered: "`We are not al-Qaida,' were the first words of Khalid Arshad Ali as he dusted the triggering mechanism of an anti-aircraft artillery gun. `We are Mujahedin. We are here to fight for Libya and no one else. We are Muslims in this country and we are all Sunnis. We know that Gaddafi is getting paid by the Jews. We know that Israel is supplying him with special guns. He is not a proper Muslim and it is our duty to fight him.' "
Now, I did say "practically." But hey -- what's wrong with Uncle Sucker given a helping hand to a few self-described "Mujahedin" who can't keep their poison for Jews from spraying all over themselves? Certainly, no one in Congress seems to mind. Maybe our representatives got the good word from U.S. ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz, whom the Wall Street Journal recently described as "point man for U.S. contacts with the rebels." Cretz tells us the rebs are totally on top of it, that they actually caught "maybe three or four" members of an al-Qaida affiliate trying to infiltrate.
Phew. That was close. Wish we could thank them -- "heckuva job, rebels" -- only we don't know who the rebels are. Asked about those "flickers" of al-Qaida and Hezbollah among rebel forces, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "We do not have any specific information about specific individuals from any organization who are part of this, but of course, we're still getting to know those who are leading the Transitional National Council. And that will be a process that continues."
Not to worry; the president doesn't. "So far, they're saying the right things," President Barack Obama said Tuesday on "CBS Evening News" when asked about Libyan opposition leaders.
And how. They even issued a "vision statement," which, according to the Guardian uses all the right words: "transparent," "empowerment," "tolerance," "green" ...
Green?
No "flickers" of jihad, but plenty of concern for the environment. Uh-huh.
Any flickers of intelligence in the minds of our leaders?



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)4/4/2011 11:10:06 AM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Inside the Massacre at Afghan Compound

By DION NISSENBAUM And MARIA ABI-HABIB 4/4/2011
online.wsj.com

MAZAR-E-SHARIF, Afghanistan—Officials are painting the weekend killings at the United Nations mission in northern Afghanistan's largest city—which sparked cascading violence across the nation—as the handiwork of a small band of insurgents that used a protest against a Quran-burning as cover for a murderous plot.

But a Wall Street Journal reconstruction of Friday's assault, based on unreleased videos, interviews with demonstrators and the U.N.'s own recounting of events, shows a more complex picture and indicates that ordinary Afghan demonstrators played a critical role in the attack.
Stirred to action by a Quran-burning at a Florida church, thousands of people swarmed past hapless Afghan police officers, heading toward a lightly protected U.N. compound. There, members of the tight-knit staff had been paying little attention to the angry protest unfolding at the city's central mosque.
Mazar-e-Sharif has long been considered one of the safest cities in Afghanistan. So the diverse U.N. staff—including a female Norwegian fighter pilot, a seasoned Russian diplomat and German woman who had been at the mission for only a week or so—took few precautions even when the mob converged on their compound, burned an American flag and threw stones at the blast walls.
By sunset, seven U.N. workers were dead. In the ensuing days, demonstrations cascaded across Afghanistan, claiming more lives Saturday and Sunday in Kandahar, far to the south.
Based on interviews with survivors, Staffan de Mistura, head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, concluded that a handful of insurgents—including Afghans with accents suggesting they came from other parts of the country—spearheaded Friday's attack on a safe room in the compound.
The rioting, which the Taliban say erupted spontaneously, adds a disturbing new threat in a country that is fighting a mostly rural insurgency. Foreign and local military forces alike are ill-prepared for riot control.
"Every security-force leader's worst nightmare is being confronted by essentially a mob," said Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of 150,000 U.S.-led coalition forces, in an interview Sunday, "especially [a mob] that can be influenced by individuals that want to incite violence, who want to try to hijack passions, in this case, perhaps understandable passions."
The Quran-burning, held March 20 at the Dove World Outreach Center by church leader Terry Jones in Gainesville, Fla., was "hateful, extremely disrespectful and enormously intolerant," Gen. Petraeus said.
Mr. Jones called Gen. Petraeus' remarks "unconstitutional" and disputed that his actions complicate U.S. efforts to fight the Taliban. "I do not necessarily think that our actions make his job more difficult," he said in an interview Sunday. "The Taliban or radical Islam will use any excuse to incite more violence. If they don't have one, they will make up an excuse."
Friday, thousands of people gathered in Mazar-e-Sharif's revered Blue Mosque. Speaker after speaker denounced the Quran-burning, which for Muslims is abhorrent because Islam teaches that the physical book is holy.
"Stand up against the enemies of the Quran with your pen," one of the men shouted from the podium, videos show. "Stand up against them with your voices. Stand up against them with weapons. It is everyone's right to stand up against them and make a jihad."
The protesters then surprised police by pouring into the street and marching toward the U.N. office, more than a mile away. At one point, according to videos reviewed by the Journal, the badly outnumbered police tried to use a six-foot wood beam to hold back the crowd. The protesters easily surged past.
Only about 60 police were deployed, and they appeared uncertain how to respond. Initial attempts to disperse the crowd by firing warning shots appeared only to inflame the demonstrators. The besieged U.N. staffers headed to two safe rooms intended to shield against intruders and bombs.
They phoned for help from the nearby military bases of German and Swedish forces, according to a person briefed on the situation. The U.S.-led military said the situation "escalated rapidly" and that a swift-reaction team didn't arrive until after rioters were gone.
Once demonstrators flooded the compound, a dozen Afghan police guards—the first line of defense—dropped their weapons, said Brig. Gen. Esmatullah Alizai, the provincial police chief. "They were surrounded and confused," he said.
Inside the compound, a small contingent of Nepalese Gurkha guards working for the U.N. faced a conundrum: They were under U.N. orders not to open fire on demonstrators. The videos show one guard feebly trying to wave an elderly demonstrator out of the compound.
Nearby, videos show, demonstrators used bent metal rods to smash a row of white U.N. SUVs.
Among those attacking the U.N. vehicles was a young religious student from a small village not far from the city. The student said in an interview that he and one of his friends found a propane tank that they shoved under one vehicle and set off an explosion.
Nearby, the student said, two Afghan policemen were hiding with a foreigner behind a tanker. When one of the officers shot and injured a young demonstrator, the student said he saw a chance to disarm him.
"Grab his weapon," the student said he shouted to his friend, who wrestled a Kalashnikov assault rifle and used it to shoot the unarmed foreigner.
Inside the building, other attackers targeted one of the safe rooms. The door proved little protection against the mob. As intruders penetrated the safe room, Pavel Ershov, a Russian diplomat who speaks fluent Dari sought to protect three staff members by distracting the assailants, the U.N.'s Mr. de Mistura said.
"Are you Muslim?" the assailants asked Mr. Ershov, according to one diplomat briefed on the attack. Mr. Ershov lied and said he was, the U.N. said. The assailants tested him by asking him to recite the traditional profession of belief in Islam, which begins, "There is no God but Allah."
When he successfully completed the test, his life was spared. Still, he was dragged into the street and beaten badly, according to a local shopkeeper who said he participated in the assault.
The attackers searched the darkened bunker with a lamp and discovered Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché—the former fighter pilot—seconded to the U.N., along with Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission's political section.
As Lt. Col. Skare attempted to flee the bunker, she was intercepted by the Afghan demonstrators who had set the car on fire. She was shot with the rifle commandeered from the police officer, one of the men said. Lt. Col. Skare died of her wounds. Messrs. Dungel and Motco were killed elsewhere.
Four Afghans—men also described as "insurgents" by Gen. Alizai, the police official—were also killed. Video footage of demonstrators leaving the U.N. compound shows two men carrying Kalashnikovs and one showing off a large, blood-spattered knife.
As the attackers focused on the four U.N. workers who had been hiding in the first safe room, diplomats said, three or four others, including the German newcomer, were sheltered in a safe room in another building. They survived.
—Yaroslav Trofimov, Zamir Saar, Michael Allen and Betsy McKay contributed to this article.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)4/4/2011 11:21:06 AM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Media Ignore Wisconsin Teacher Charged With Sending Death Threats to Republicans

By Noel Sheppard | April 02, 2011
newsbusters.org

As NewsBusters reported last month, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and NPR totally ignored Wisconsin Republicans receiving death threats as a result of their support for Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill.

Although the following report concerning a woman being charged for emailing such threats was published by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel at 5 PM Thursday, almost no major media outlets thought it was newsworthy:

A 26-year-old woman was charged Thursday with two felony counts and two misdemeanor counts for allegedly making email threats against Wisconsin lawmakers during the height of the battle over Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill.
Katherine R. Windels of Cross Plains was named in a criminal complaint filed in Dane County Criminal Court.
According to the criminal complaint, Windels allegedly sent an email threat to State Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) March 9. Later that evening, she allegedly sent another email to 15 Republican legislators, including Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).
The subject line of the second email was: "Atten: Death Threat!!!! Bomb!!!" In that email, she purportedly wrote, "Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks."

Windels is a schoolteacher.
The complaint against her was filed at 8:30 AM Thursday. Yet, according to LexisNexis and Google searches, not one major American newspaper outside of Wisconsin has reported her being charged.
Not one.
From what I could uncover, the only wire service to consider this newsworthy was the Associated Press, but as NewsBusters reported, its stories concerning this matter only crossed their state and local wire.
As for television, through Friday evening, there has not been one single mention of Windels' name on ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or PBS. No NPR either.
Not one word.

Interestingly, CBSNews.com's Political Hotsheet reported this revelation Friday morning as did CNN.com. As such, these news divisions were aware of this matter, but still chose to not discuss it on the air. The only network that did was Fox News in a report filed on "The O'Reilly Factor" Friday.
With this in mind, virtually no Americans are aware that death threats were made against Republican lawmakers during March's battle in Wisconsin, and even fewer have been informed that a female schoolteacher has been charged.

Would this boycott have occurred if Windels was a Tea Party member
and those email messages had been sent to the Wisconsin Democrats that fled their state to prevent Walker's bill from being passed?
It seems a metaphysical certitude every news organization in the country would have been all over that story like white on rice.
Yet because this was a union-supporting teacher threatening Republicans - crickets.
Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)4/5/2011 9:01:42 AM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
After assuring a Promised Land under Barack Obama, the left appears naked, with no answers anywhere in the cupboard. No water-turned-into-wine, no manna from heaven, no Holy Grail. All that remains are false promises from a false messiah made in the Left's own image. From Iran to Egypt to Libya, there are no solutions. This wasn't supposed to be.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)4/5/2011 12:33:05 PM
From: tejekRead Replies (3) | Respond to of 306849
 
Boehner's "poor and lazy" comments to Rolling Stone reflect his party's beliefs

April 4th, 2011 10:34 am ET
Leo Kapakos

examiner.com

Speaker of the House John Boehner claims that the “poor and lazy” caused the current economic crisis during an interview Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone according to Rumormiller.com. Boehner stuck to Republican Party talking points during the interview until Taibbi during a coffee break asked Boehner about today's young people. Apparently unaware he was still on record, Boehner, let Taibbi know how he really felt about poor Americans:

"Can't pay your student loan? Face it your parents were lazy and you couldn't afford college. The world needs ditch diggers and you were born into a family of them. Can't pay your mortgage? Your house was too expensive and you couldn't afford it."It's not going to happen in the US. The kids here are too fat, too lazy, to addicted to TV, fast food, cheap credit, and facebook.” I have news for you- there are plenty of jobs out there- the unemployed don't want them. Today's college student feels entitled to make at least $24 right after college. I'm not worried for this country- there are a few of them who actually want to work, take Mark Zucker(sic). You don't build a site like facebook out of thin air- it takes talent and hard work. I went to a community college and all I saw were people sitting in front of computers typing away, their eyes were fixed. Probably just facebooking away."

For the record, I was raised in the inner city and went to a community college and I did fine. Moreover, Mark Zuckerberg is not your typical American college student. Zuckerberg was a child prodigy who came from a well-to-do family and went to Harvard without the help of student loans. By the way, there are claims that Zuckerberg stole the idea and code for Facebook so he may have been a bit ethically challenged which you forgot to mention. If that’s true, he missed his calling on Wall Street – but I digress.

John Boehner and his beliefs are unfortunately a microcosm of the views of today’s Republican/Tea Party when it comes to America’s poor and middle class. Screw the less fortunate in society- they deserve it. The kids are fat, lazy, and they don’t want to work and their parents are buying homes that they can’t afford. If it were up to John Boehner, we wouldn’t have programs in place that benefit the poor and middle class. Programs like - the Federal Fair Housing Law, Medicaire, Social Security, Food Stamps, Federally sponsored student loan programs, Head Start, Unemployment Compensation, and Collective Bargaining Rights - would not exist.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305059)4/5/2011 4:35:29 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
No surprise here. Unions have always been the Democratic puppet masters.
..............................................................
National union spokesman sent talking points to Wisconsin Senate Democrats

By Jason Stein Journal Sentinel April 5, 2011
jsonline.com