Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 10:44:58 AM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB steve harris Respond to of 1573150

When women lived free in Afghanistan: Pictures show how they were once able to study, wear skirts and mix freely with men - before civil war, invasion and the Taliban enslaved them Photos byMohammad Qayoumi show the free life Afghan women enjoyed Kabul-born Qayoumi went on to become an engineering professor in the U.S Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001 was condemned for its oppression of women By Ted Thornhill PUBLISHED: 12:31 GMT, 22 January 2014 \| UPDATED: 13:44 GMT, 22 January 2014 80 shares 6 View comments Women in Afghanistan were brutally repressed under Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001 – but a series of fascinating old photographs show how women there used to live freely. The Taliban were condemned around the world for their treatment of women. Under their rule women were forbidden to be educated, publicly beaten for showing disobedience and forced to wear burqas – a garment that covers the whole body, apart from the eyes. +12 Women browse in a Kabul record store +12 Women in a biology class at Kabul University However, Mohammad Humayon Qayoumi, who was born in Kabul in Afghanistan, and went on to become an engineering professor at San Jose State University, wrote a photo-essay book called Once Upon A Time in Afghanistan that documented how life before the Taliban used to very different for women. More... Not all British high streets have changed beyond recognition: The businesses that are proud to have stood the test of time Inside India’s trafficking gangs: Lifting the lid on the criminals who steal girls as young as NINE and sell them into the sex trade His photographs from the 1950s, 60s and 70s show how they used to be afforded university-level education, browse record shops in short skirts and study science. Indeed a State Department report from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor from 2001 explains how women were given the vote in the 1920s, were granted equality in the Afghan constitution in the 1960s and by the early 1990s formed 70 per cent of school teachers, 50 per cent of government workers and in Kabul, 40 per cent of doctors. +12 Women nurses tend to babies in a hospital infant ward +12 A laboratory at a Vaccine Research Center +12 Afghan women being taught biology +12 Kabul university students chat in-between classes Mr Qayoumi said: ‘Remembering Afghanistan’s hopeful past only makes its present misery seem more tragic. But it is important to know that disorder, terrorism, and violence against schools that educate girls are not inevitable. I want to show Afghanistan’s youth of today how their parents and grandparents really lived.’ Afghanistan’s president Hamid Karzai recently endorsed a code of conduct that would prohibit many of the scenes shown in these photographs. It states that women are not allowed to travel without a male guardian and must not mingle with strange men in public places such as schools, markets and offices. +12 Happier times: Afghan women taking part in a Scout scheme +12 The modern transport of the day: Female bus passengers in Kabul +12 Afghanis mingle freely in a cinema Wife-beating is only prohibited if there is no 'Shariah-compliant reason', it said. Mr Karzai insisted the document was in keeping with Islam and did not restrict women. 'It is the Shariah law of all Muslims and all Afghans,' he said. +12 Nurses arrive at the house of an elderly villager +12 Mothers and children pictured having fun in a city playground +12 Women look on as a nurse at a hospital shows them how to bathe a baby Read more: dailymail.co.uk credit monkey man

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 11:30:44 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573150

Fact-Free Liberals By Thomas Sowell - January 21, 2014 Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words -- "educated," "smart" and "ignorant." Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today. President Obama seems completely unaware of how many of the policies he is trying to impose have been tried before, in many times and places around the world, and have failed time and again. Economic equality? That was tried in the 19th century, in communities set up by Robert Owen, the man who coined the term "socialism." Those communities all collapsed. It was tried even earlier, in 18th century Georgia, when that was a British colony. People in Georgia ended up fleeing to other colonies, as many other people would vote with their feet in the 20th century, by fleeing many other societies around the world that were established in the name of economic equality. But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left -- which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study -- are not likely to get much attention. The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges. Recently Kirsten Powers repeated on Fox News Channel the discredited claim that women are paid only about three-quarters of what a man is paid for doing the same work. But there have been empirical studies, going back for decades, showing that there is no such gap when the women and men are in the same occupation, with the same skills, experience, education, hours of work and continuous years of full-time work. Income differences between the sexes reflect the fact that women and men differ in all these things -- and more. Young male doctors earn much more than young female doctors. But young male doctors work over 500 hours a year more than young female doctors. Then there is the current hysteria which claims that people in the famous "top one percent" have incomes that are rising sharply and absorbing a wholly disproportionate share of all the income in the country. But check out a Treasury Department study titled "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005." It uses income tax data, showing that people who were in the top one percent in 1996 had their incomes fall -- repeat, fall -- by 26 percent by 2005. What about the other studies that seem to say the opposite? Those are studies of income brackets, not studies of the flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving from one bracket to another over time. More than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. This is hardly surprising when you consider that their incomes were going down while there was widespread hysteria over the belief that their incomes were going up. Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time. All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation. For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks. But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites. When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination. Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is. realclearpolitics.com credit peter dierkes

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 11:32:02 AM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By d[-_-]b FJB Respond to of 1573150

When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination. Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is.

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 12:25:32 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573150

Revealed: Dispirited Obama “Shocked” He Couldn’t Get Gun Control Passed After Newtown Massacre The Gateway Pundit ^ \| Wednesday, January 22, 2014 \| Kristinn Taylor David Remnick, author of the new nearly 17,000 word profile of President Barack Obama in the New Yorker, revealed in a podcast interview this week that a dispirited Obama told him that he misread the “moment in political history” and was shocked he could not get gun control measures passed in the wake of the December 2012 Newtown, Ct., Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in which a lone gunman killed twenty children and six adults. Remnick left this revelation out of his 18 page article which was based on numerous in depth interviews with Obama. Remnick did not devote anything of substance in the article to Obama’s gun control failure except to note he couldn’t get it done. This is curious because the way Remnick describes it, this was an enormous political failure that took a toll on Obama . Remnick should have explored this further and reported on it. Remnick spoke about Obama’s reaction to his failure on gun control in a New Yorker podcast interview about the article with Executive Editor Dorothy Wickenden and Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza that was taped on Monday. In describing Obama’s reaction, Remnick sounds just as shocked as he says Obama is about the failure to pass gun control after Newtown. Remnick made his comments while speaking about Obama’s ambitious second term agenda, including gun control, that he laid out in his Inaugural address one year ago this month. Remnick: “Well look at gun control. You had the ruthless slaughter of school children played out in front of the American public in Connecticut. If ever there was a moment emotionally and politically that serious gun control would take hold of Congress it was then. Eighty-three percent of the public was for at least some minimal gun control. The NRA was a mockery in a lot of quarters and who won? The NRA and the right. “I think this sh.., I know this shocked Obama. He said along this trip that I followed him on that one moment in political history where he really misread what would happen was on gun control. It was a terrible failure. And I think really dispiriting.” Obama made an angry speech in the Rose Garden after he was defeated in the Senate last April. He called it a “shameful day for Washington.” Given the impact he says this political miscalculation had on Obama, it is curious Remnick chose not to include it in his profile but instead buried it in a podcast.

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 12:43:42 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573150

Ranchers Fed up with Destruction Illegals Leave Behind (South Texas Illegals) Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:36:26 PM · by SwinneySwitch · 3 replies KRGV ^ \| Jan 21, 2014

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 12:52:23 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573150

Escalation: After Cuomo's 'No Place in New York' Remarks, His Counsel Reminds the New York Post of Their 'Responsibility' By Tom Blumer \| January 22, 2014 newsbusters.org On Friday, as I noted on Saturday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told public radio's Susan Arbetter that "extreme conservatives" – that is, people who are pro-life, understand the clear meaning of the Second Amendment, or wish to keep marriage as it has traditionally been defined – "have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are." Note well that Cuomo's remarks are still not news at the Associated Press's national site. On Sunday, Cuomo's people sent and released an "open letter" containing a very inaccurate transcription of the original interview accusing the New York Post's Aaron Short of being "entirely reckless with facts and the truth" in his report ("Gov. Cuomo to conservatives: Leave NY!"). As I demonstrated on Monday, the only reasonable interpretation of what Cuomo said is that Republican Party members who hold any one of the three positions noted in the previous paragraph "have no place in the state of New York." In the past several days, the matter has escalated. The Post has continued to cover the story – that's what newspapers are supposed to do – while, in an extraordinary move, the Counsel to the Governor has entered the fray with what can only be interpreted as threatening language. Monday morning, the Post's Fredric U. Dicker covered the reaction of some "leading Republicans" (bolds are mine throughout this post): Gov. Cuomo is under attack from Donald Trump, Rob Astorino and other leading Republicans for his jaw-dropping claim that conservatives who oppose abortion and gay rights and favor traditional gun ownership “have no place in the state of New York." Trump, who says he’ll decide about entering the governor’s race next month, called the comments “a terrible statement, an unfortunate statement.” “It’s hard to believe that he really believes that," continued Trump, when reached for comment by The Post at his home in Palm Beach, Fla. Westchester County Executive Astorino, who has also promised an announcement next month on whether he’ll run for governor, called Cuomo’s comments “just the kind of intolerance that is directly opposite to what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached.” “New York already leads the nation in chasing away its own citizens because of extraordinary high taxes, so does Cuomo really want to bully millions more away?" Astorino said. “New York’s greatness comes from accepting people of differing points of view. What Andrew Cuomo has revealed by these statements is his true self, because we see just how angry and radical his views are." ... state GOP Chairman Ed Cox plans to publicly urge Cuomo to apologize for his comments. “I will call on Gov. Cuomo to apologize to all New Yorkers for poisoning New York’s politics with divisive rhetoric at a time when New York needs to be united to address its continuing economic problems,’’ Cox said. Cuomo made his breathtaking remarks during a radio interview Friday as he discussed the widening Republican rift between moderates, whose support he’s seeking in his re-election campaign, and conservatives, whom he characterized as anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and pro-traditional gun ownership. Mylan Denerstein, the Governor's Counsel, took serious umbrage to Dicker's predominantly fact-based report, issuing an "Open Letter to the Editor of the New York Post in Response to Today's Column by Fred Dicker." Given Dicker's prominent position in Empire State media and the relatively cordial relationship he and the Governor once had, the tone of Denerstein's response is extremely (there's that word again) aggressive. Here it is, in full (numbered tags are mine): As we approach the political season we expect the campaign dialogue to become more heated on both sides. We understand the New York Post is an opinionated newspaper and that Fred Dicker is an extreme conservative. [1] However responsibility must not be forsaken. [2] Dicker's story that the Governor said Conservatives have no place in New York is unfair, false [3] and the exact opposite of what his tenure as Attorney General and his state administration has been all about. The Governor has never demonized the opposition to his gun law nor stance on protecting choice nor marriage equality. [4] The Governor is a gun owner and a Catholic. His faith is very important to him and he respects the Second Amendment. [5] I have been party to many of these discussions over the years and while opinions are firm, the entire discussion on these different views has been tempered and respectful. The Governor's main principle for New York State is tolerance of different opinions, races, sexual orientation, and religion. Fred Dicker has angered many with what has been reported as "hateful" comments [6] but the Governor would be the first to defend Dicker's right to express his views and believes the diversity of opinion is one of New York State's greatest assets. The Governor was making the point that he makes often: New York is a politically moderate state and an extremist agenda is not politically viable statewide. [7] New York has a long history of electing Democrats and Republicans statewide who are moderate rather than on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. That is an inarguable fact. Let's discuss relevant issues rationally. [8] Or at least attempt to do so. Notes: [1] — In an April 2011 profile at the New York Times, Jeremy W. Peters portrayed a man who is an Empire State institution, an equal opportunity critic, and someone who is "generally conservative and libertarian (links are in original): ... The era when one reporter could dominate the news has given way to a modern media culture saturated with blogging, posting on Twitter and stories with millisecond shelf lives. But New York can be more old-fashioned. And here Mr. Dicker’s radio show and weekly op-ed column in The Post remain a potent cocktail in state politics. Walk through the marbled corridors of the State Capitol, and you will hear radios tuned to 1300 AM, where Mr. Dicker holds court every weekday morning. Aides are assigned to take notes and file reports to their bosses about what he said. He pummels politicians with such bipartisan brutality that people seem unable to turn away. His take on three governors — Eliot Spitzer: “ A consummate hypocrite.” David A. Paterson: “ Liar, liar, pants on fire!” George E. Pataki: “ A selfish cynic.” So far he has been gentle with Governor Cuomo in columns that extol, not excoriate. He has compared the governor’s leadership style with Theodore Roosevelt’s, admired his “fierce work ethic” and even lent credence to wild speculation that Mr. Cuomo could replace Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as President Obama’s running mate. Admiration tends to come before scorn. ... Mr. Cuomo has made Mr. Dicker’s show his only regular media stop, appearing on it five times since being inaugurated in January — more than he has sat down for formal interviews with any other media outlet. Mr. Dicker’s distinctive brand of journalism — old-school beat reporting, searing commentary and a sizable dose of showmanship — has helped him endure for more than three decades in Albany. He has managed to persevere even as the press corps around him has shrunk from budget cuts. ... Capitol events are often planned around the radio show, at times to accommodate Mr. Dicker and at times to avoid him. ... Mr. Dicker grew up in the Bronx, the son of a federal housing lawyer and a librarian’s assistant. Though his generally conservative and libertarian politics today might suggest otherwise, he harbored leftish sympathies as a young man. Somewhere along the way, Team Cuomo decided that someone who a New York Times writer would only describe as "generally" conservative became "extreme." Perhaps this has occurred in the past several days. But the attempt to demonize Dicker could be traced to December of 2012, when he described the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut as " convenient" for gun-grabbers. Dicker was inconveniently right from the left's perspecitve, because gun-grabber Cuomo capitalized on the tragedy to push his beloved "SAFE Act," described when it was passed as the "toughest gun control law in the nation." It would appear, if Cuomo had his way, that Fredric Dicker would be among those who "have no place in New York." [2] — Translation: "Fredric Dicker is being irresponsible. Fredric Dicker and the New York Post need to stop being irresponsible. Do I need to remind you that I'm the Governor's Counsel, with the full resources of the State of New York at my disposal?" [3] — As I showed on Monday, the most generous interpretation of what Cuomo said is that he was "only" referring to "extremely conservative Republican Party members, "simply because the only way for someone to 'win' a contest between moderate Republicans and 'extreme Republicans' (for state legislative offices) is to have a vote of the Republican Party electorate, aka the primary elections on June 24." [4] — Memo to Ms. Denerstein — Calling those who oppose same-sex marriage "anti-gay" demonizes them. Calling those who understand and defend the Second Amendment's clear meaning "pro-assault weapon" demonizes them. It's not arguable. Cuomo used both characterizations in his Friday radio interview. [5] — Shortly after Sandy Hook, Cuomo said that gun "confiscation could be an option." Under the SAFE Act guns are being confiscated from law-abiding owners. Cuomo's supposed "respect" for the Second Amendment is a sham. [6] — As noted earlier, this would appear to Dicker's post-Sandy Hook "convenient" assertion. There was no "hate" in that. It turns out to have been what is known as "an accurate observation." [7] — This is a pathetic dodge by Denerstein, because that is NOT what the Governor said. Cuomo was assessing the electoral prospects of those who would be running for seats in the State Senate, not those running for "statewide" office. Senators represent districts, not the entire state. There are surely plenty of districts in New York where what Denerstein insists is an "extreme agenda" (i.e., supporting the right to life, the Second Amendment, and traditional marriage) has majority support. [8] —Translation: "Fredric Dicker is being irrational. Fredric Dicker and the New York Post need to stop being irrational. Do I need to remind you again that I'm the Governor's Counsel, with the full resources of the State of New York at my disposal?" It would appear that Team Cuomo is now trying to intimidate its way out of the nasty situation the Governor created for himself. In a Tuesday editorial, the Post indicated that it's not going to let that happen: Gov. Cuomo’s thin skin Is it just us, or is Andrew Cuomo being awfully touchy? On Monday, the governor’s counsel denounced The Post’s Fredric U. Dicker as an “extreme conservative” in an open letter. This follows an open letter from the Gov. Cuomo’s office on the same subject — remarks by the governor he complains have been taken out of context. These remarks came from his radio interview Friday. On air, the governor called some Republican conservatives “extremists” who “have no place in the state of New York.” In a free society, the way to resolve polarizing issues is by debating them openly and trying to persuade your fellow citizens you are right. It’s not to suggest people keep their views to themselves. American history, moreover, is replete with causes — civil rights, for one — that initially were unpopular but ended up prevailing. The governor takes offense because he says his views have been mischaracterized. We wonder how those on the receiving end feel about his characterizations. Is it fair, for example, to label those who have doubts about gun control as “pro-assault-weapon”? Does favoring traditional marriage mean you are “anti-gay”? And are pro-lifers trying to impose a “religious belief,” or might their position reflect their conclusion about when human life begins? If these conservatives find Gov. Cuomo’s language about having no place in New York politics troubling, maybe it’s because it comes at a time when other Americans likewise tagged as “extremists” for their politics found themselves singled out for special treatment by the IRS. ... (the Governor) indulged in cheap caricatures meant to advance a truly self-serving and noxious argument: that anyone who disagrees with Andrew Cuomo on these issues must be an extremist. On Monday, Michael Gerson at the Washington Post identified what's going on: Andrew Cuomo silences the opposition ... Cuomo does not deign to argue with New Yorkers who oppose abortion, support a maximalist interpretation of the Second Amendment or defend the position on gay marriage held by Barack Obama when he was first elected president. These extreme views, according to Cuomo, are fundamentally illiberal and foreign to the values of his state. Such positions are not to be engaged with and refuted; they are to be marginalized. We are accustomed to this approach within the gates of certain colleges and universities that have vague, open-ended speech codes intended to stigmatize certain viewpoints. This is often taken by ideologues as implicit permission to shout down differing opinions. The power to define the boundaries of acceptable discourse is the power to intimidate. Academic liberals tend to regard universities as “our place,” in which others may stay as long as they behave. Now Cuomo has applied this attitude to the whole of the Empire State. From a provost, this is a violation of academic freedom. From a government official, it is an attack on genuine pluralism. Make no mistake: Mylan Denerstein is also telling the rest of the establishment press to stay away from reporting Cuomo's remarks or, if they feel they must cover them, to frame them to the Cuomo adminstration's satisfaction. The New York Times's "coverage" of the story thus far is limited to one sentence in the "Coming Up Today" portion of yesterday's "New York Today" section: "Republicans in Queens protest Governor Cuomo’s recent radio remarks that “extreme conservative” opponents of abortion rights, gun control and gay marriage “have no place” in the state. Queens Borough Hall, 11:30 a.m." Well, at least the squib isn't in line with Denerstein's false characterizations. Will the rest of the press sit by meekly while the Governor of one of the nation's largest states ratchets up the intimidation? I sure hope not, but I'm not counting on it. I'm afraid that many journalists would rather see freedom of expression shrink than be seen as sympathizing with a Rupert Murdoch-owned publication. If Texas Senator Ted Cruz or Lone Star State Governor Rick Perry said anything about people who disagree with them not being welcome in Texas, it would be the subject of non-stop saturation establishment press coverage for weeks.

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 1:25:16 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573150

I’d visit New York if they held a tar and feathering party for Cuomo which culminated in riding him out of Albany on a rail.

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 1:32:52 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573150

Kanye West Threatens To Leave United States Due To Racism

To: FJB who wrote (765108)	1/22/2014 1:34:29 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573150

The rights the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood and Illegals have that you don’t ....................................................................................................... Flopping Aces ^ \| 01-22-14 \| DrJohn Ready for this? The Saudis can skip the TSA security checkpoints The Obama administration has quietly rewarded the Middle Eastern country that produced most of the 9/11 hijackers with a special travel privilege that allows its nationals to bypass normal passport security controls at major U.S. airports. Only a handful of U.S. allies—including Canada, Mexico, South Korea and the Netherlands—currently enjoy the perk while other American partners like Germany and France are still excluded. Incredibly, the Obama administration has cut a deal with Saudi Arabia, which produced 15 of the 19 hijackers in the 2001 terrorist attacks, to enjoy the privilege under a program called Global Entry. It’s not the kind of story you’ll see in the mainstream media, but a research center dedicated to investigating radical Islamic terrorist groups, their operations and funding, brought much-needed attention to it this week. Citing Homeland Security sources, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) reveals that it will mark the first time that the Saudi government has a direct role in vetting who is eligible for fast-tracked entry into the United States. This is a “slap in the face,” according to IPT, which posts a number of in-depth reports on its website on topics ranging from American jihadist terrorism to the influence of Islamic law on law enforcement and the Muslim Brotherhood. Among the investigations that relate to this particular issue is a 2011 report documenting how textbooks long used in Saudi Arabia’s schools promote religious violence. Keep in mind that most of the 9/11 terrorist and Osama bin Laden himself were born and educated in Saudi Arabia. It’s downright outrageous that the Obama administration is now making it easier for Saudis to enter the United States. Consider that just three years ago the U.S. government actually placed Saudi Arabia on a list of 14 countries whose travelers would face enhanced security when entering the country. Why? Because a Saudi national named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. commercial airliner on Christmas Day in 2009. Around the same time Judicial Watch reported that a Saudi Arabian “rehabilitation” program that supposedly reforms terrorists jailed at Guantanamo Bay has instead served as a training camp for future jihadists. Regardless, the Obama administration supports the program and has sent a number of Guantanamo detainees its way even though many have rejoined terrorist missions that target Americans. You, an American citizen, can’t The Muslim Brotherhood can skip TSA security Newly released records confirm a 2012 Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) report that the State Department cleared the way for a visiting delegation of Muslim Brotherhood officials to enter the country without undergoing routine inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. The April 2012 visit came before the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate was elected Egypt’s president, although the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) had won a plurality of seats in parliamentary elections. The expedited entry is known as a “port courtesy” normally reserved for high-ranking visiting government officials and dignitaries. The records, marked “sensitive but unclassified,” were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. They offer few details. The State Department released a one-page document labeled “Compiled References to MB Delegation Arrival and Departure” containing four separate communications between March 30 and April 16, 2012 about the Brotherhood delegation. It is not clear who wrote them or who received them. “In the coming days, we’re going to write down a list of procedures for dealing with MB visits to the United States,” an April 16, 2012 entry says. A March 30 communication offers help dealing with “FJP Delegation and POE [port of entry] Courtesies: Please let the desk know over the weekend if you’d like our help submitting to DHS the ‘Special Alerts,’ which are used to request that travelers not be pulled into secondary [inspection] upon arrival at a point of entry.” But one member of the Brotherhood delegation, which met with U.S. academic and senior government officials, had been linked to a child pornography investigation in the United States years earlier. Under normal circumstances, he likely would have been subjected to extra scrutiny. You, an American citizen, can’t. A Muslim who tries to blow up an airliner or say, Boston, cannot be identified as a Muslim. The Justice Department will significantly expand its definition of racial profiling to prohibit federal agents from considering religion, national origin, gender and sexual orientation in their investigations, a government official said Wednesday. A Latino illegal alien who kills an American citizen cannot be identified as a Latino See if you can find the idiocy in the following quote: The move addresses a decade of criticism from civil rights groups that say federal authorities have in particular singled out Muslims in counterterrorism investigations and Latinos for immigration investigations. How many terrorist investigation don’t involve Muslims? How many illegal aliens are not Latinos? National Security be damned The Bush administration banned profiling in 2003, but with two caveats: It did not apply to national security cases, and it covered only race, not religion, ancestry or other factors. Since taking office, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has been under pressure from Democrats in Congress to eliminate those provisions. Following the above guidelines, write your own BOLO for these perps and suspects: The Sochi “Black Widow” Does anyone think having only one of these images would be ideal? These illegals “allegedly” gang-raped a 13 year old girl: The suspects reportedly described their deeds as a “dream act.” Edwin Ramos, murderer of three And who about this guy- who was arrested for criminal trespass and for contributing to the delinquency of a minor? It is, of course, acceptable to identify suspects by race if it’s the right one: I’ve written about this issue for years online. I got a big break in 2007. The LA Times issued an official online statement admitting that it was standard practice in the newspaper industry to censor of the race of minority crime perpetrators. In the past year, a multitude of media bosses have publicly confessed to censoring black crime. Some of them proudly confess, and say that the censorship is for the public’s benefit. Some of them even call critics “racists” for asking for accurate news coverage. In-state tuition The state of California offers in-state college tuition rates for illegal aliens. The children of long time taxpaying US citizens are not entitled to the same rights. Free Transportation for the children of illegals The Obama Administration is under suspicion for allegedly helping to smuggle children of illegal immigrants across the United States border. Fox News reports that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) wrote a letter to new Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson questioning the policy. Vitter wrote: I am shocked to learn that the federal government is a participant in an international human smuggling conspiracy. I cannot imagine a case in which such a policy would be in accordance with the established mission of the Department, particularly since this encourages additional smuggling and the sometimes extreme abuse of the smuggled children involved. Last month, a federal judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, stated that immigration agents were catching smugglers trying to bring children of illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border, and then the immigration agents were delivering the children to their parents. Hanen said the actions of the agents aided human traffickers and the drug cartels. I can’t get Obama to provide my kids free transportation. Free Health Care for illegals An illegal alien just completed 12 surgeries and a record 374-day stay in a Fresno hospital. For him, it was “free” health care. But for taxpayers, the hospital and patients who ultimately pay, it’s another big bill. Marco Antonio Fuentes had high praise the staff at Community Regional Medical Center who heroically saved his life after he came down with necrotic pancreatitis, a condition that destroyed his intestines. A medical team there rebuilt his gastrointestinal tract, monitored his progress and provided the best of care to him for more than a year. And the cost? Somewhere in the millions, by all estimates. As an illegal immigrant, he didn’t have to pay a thing. The taxpayers, the charity unit and the other patients will have to foot that bill. Fuentes didn’t have a word of thanks for them. American citizens have to pay for their health care. Fradulent tax credits for illegals Call it a loophole, tax fraud, or government at its most outrageous, but it’s got to stop. The federal government is currently handing out $4.2 billion in taxpayer-funded checks a year to illegal immigrants. This isn’t some service benefit that illegal immigrants are receiving like taxpayer-subsidized healthcare or education. And it’s not a tax deduction or credit that requires the recipient to actually pay any taxes. It’s a taxpayer-funded check from the federal government via the refundable Child Tax Credit program. And there’s absolutely no proof required that the recipient actually be eligible under the law, which illegal immigrants are not. Abuse of this tax benefit is one of the most ridiculous factors adding to our country’s federal deficit today. Equally harmful, it is acting as a powerful incentive for more illegal immigrants to come to America — a magnet for more and more illegal crossings and activity. Taxpaying citizens? Screw you. The taxpaying citizens of this country are cash cows for democrat largesse. And they said illegals could not collect Social Security. We citizens are treated like criminals at TSA checkpoints while foreign Muslims can skip them and illegals demand we open our wallets for them. What exactly is the point of being a citizen any more?