Recently in US Category

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.

By William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott

FOXNews.com

Thursday, April 02, 2009
0
x

in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
1 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThis
PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Cities and States Plan Strange New Taxes on Pretty Much Everything
[2009-03-31]
cities states plan strange taxes on ... everything, cities and states plan strange new taxes on pretty much everything, tax, strange, cities states plan strange new taxes on ... everything
5177 visitors also liked this.
Republicans Disinvite Palin to Major Fundraiser
[2009-03-31]
republicans disinvite palin to major fundraiser, republican, palin, republicans stay home sarah, sarah
5089 visitors also liked this.
Justice Department Files Motion to Drop Case Against Former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens
[2009-04-01]
stevens conviction to be voided, stevens too bad i lost election, justice department seeks to drop stevens case, election, lost
2949 visitors also liked this.
House Republicans Call for Stimulus Repeal in Budget Plan
[2009-04-01]
gop roll back stimulus, stimulus, gop, gop calls for stimulus repeal in budget plan, house republicans call for stimulus repeal in budget plan
2174 visitors also liked this.
McCain Seeks Pardon for First Black Heavyweight Champ
[2009-04-01]
a pardon for first black heavyweight champ?, pardon, first, mccain seeks pardon for 1st black heavyweight champ, mccain seeks pardon for first black heavyweight champ
1823 visitors also liked this.
powered by Baynote

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. By all accounts, it's probably around 17 percent.

More stupid insanity from the escaped monkeys who are running this administration.

Send all these killing machines into the homes of the lawyers who are volunteering to defend them. Allow the lawyers to really get to know their clients, before they die.

Keep the terrorists OUT OF AMERICA! What good can come of allowing these pig lovers a chance at more Americans?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/virginia-jail-home-gitmo-detainees/

A Virginia jail could be the next home for Guantanamo Bay inmates.

The maximum security jail in Alexandra, Va. -- home to approximately 460 inmates -- is under contract to take federal inmates who are tried at the courthouse just a few blocks away.

Among them could be former Al Qaeda operatives detained in Guantanamo Bay like Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda's operations chief, or Abd Al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the U.S.S. Cole attack, Alexandria sheriff Dana Lawhorne told FOX News.

"We are a maximum security jail, so the answer is yes," Lawhorne said when asked about the possibility that Gitmo detainees could be transferred to the jail.

Lawhorne said that although most inmates are booked at city jail on local charges, Al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui was detained there in a separate unit on the third floor for five years.

Lawhorne said he and his team were given specific instructions for Moussaoui's imprisonment, which included no contact with television, radio, or other inmates.

"He had to be isolated. He could not be within earshot -- of television, radios, and other people. It takes a lot of space to accomplish that," Lawhorne said.

The jail, built in 1987, is surrounded by condominiums, government offices, and a luxury hotel just a few hundred feet from the courthouse door.

In a letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder two weeks ago, Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican, inquired about the housing and handling of detainees at Alexandria's jail because he said all signs indicate that Gitmo detainees will be transferred there. Holder's office has not yet responded, according to Wolf.

When NBC first ran with a story about this, I laughed and cheered. Now that the story is changing and there are three reported strikes, I am having a harder time believing it.

Not that either the US or Israelis are incapable of this, except politically, but it is very unlikely that this is the results of either airstrikes or drones. One strike might work, but three?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2009/03/exclusive-three.html

ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: Israel has conducted three military strikes against targets in Sudan since January in an effort to prevent what were believed to be Iranian weapons shipments from reaching Hamas in the Gaza Strip, ABC News has learned.

Earlier this week, CBSNews.com was the first to report that Israel had conducted an airstrike in January against a convoy carrying weapons north into Egypt to be smuggled into the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

But actually, since January, Israel has conducted a total of three military strikes against smugglers transporting what were believed to be Iranian weapons shipments destined for Gaza, a U.S. official told ABC News.

The information matches recent reports from Sudanese officials of two airstrikes in the desert of eastern Sudan and the sinking of a ship in the Red Sea carrying weapons.

Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, would only say, "No comment," when contacted by ABC News on the matter.

Sudanese officials initially said this week that 39 people riding in 17 trucks were killed in a mid-January airstrike conducted by an unidentified aircraft in a desert area north of the Red Sea port of Port Sudan.

Today, a Sudanese Foreign Ministry representative said there were two separate bombing raids against smugglers in January and February. The Sudanese minister for highways was more specific, saying the airstrikes took place Jan. 27 and Feb. 11.

Arabic broadcaster Al-Jazeera also reported today a Sudanese official's claim that Israel had sunk a ship carrying weapons.

Israeli officials continue to refuse to confirm or deny the reports of airstrikes, but Thursday Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, "Israel hits every place it can in order to stop terror, near and far."

In January, the United States signed an agreement with Israel to stop arms smuggling into Gaza. At the time, Israel was conducting a military operation in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for Hamas' firing of rockets on Israeli towns.

Shortly after the agreement was signed, the U.S. Navy twice boarded a Cypriot ship in the Red Sea that was traveling from Iran to Syria and believed to be carrying Iranian weapons bound for Hamas.

After the boardings were inconclusive, the United States asked Egypt and Cyprus to search the vessel when it made ports of call. Cypriot authorities ultimately found material that could be used to manufacture munitions, which they described as a violation of the U.N. ban on Iranian arms exports.

After the Media have tried to make the story about the Israelis and the US, it would be a shame not to elaborate upon the malfeasance of the Iranians and their lackeys.

A better report is at Report: Israel Attacked Sudan 3X Near Egyptian Border

So who did bomb the Iranian arms trucks in Sudan?

and also:

Sudan: Questions on an Airstrike
STRATFOR Today » March 26, 2009 | 1357 GMT

Reports emerged March 26 of an airstrike on a convoy of suspected arms smugglers in Sudan in January. Information is still sketchy at this point, and the story has unraveled with each new statement, but the report appears to have originated in Sudan, with Sudanese officials pointing fingers at the United States. (This comes after the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, who has maintained a defiant position despite the pressure.) A CBS report then emerged citing U.S. officials that in turn placed responsibility in Israel's lap.

At the moment, these reports raise more questions than answers.

These reports have already been circulated across various media outlets, and most reports read identically. Where did they come from, who leaked them and why now?

Are the reports accurate? At this point, the reports suggest that a 17-truck convoy was attacked north of the Sudanese city of Port Sudan (near the Egyptian border) by aircraft, killing some 39 people. The convoy was supposedly carrying arms bound for Hamas in Gaza -- weapons that originated from Iran. (STRATFOR has noted connections between Iran and Sudan.)

If accurate, what weapons were being smuggled? Small-arms ammunition, mortars and the occasional Grad artillery rocket? Advanced anti-tank guided missiles?

Who pulled off the reported attack and why? If reports of the scale of this attack are accurate, it would have taken more than a single unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to pull it off, even the more heavily armed MQ-9 Reaper. The U.S. military operates out of Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, the base of operations for counterterrorism efforts in the Horn of Africa. Aircraft as large as the AC-130 gunship are thought to operate from there, though most of the presence there is thought to consist of CIA and special operations force elements. The Pentagon certainly has the assets in place to accomplish an operation like this.

It is a 600-mile flight down the Red Sea and the coast of Egypt before Israel planes could arrive at the Sudanese coast, and then get further inland for the actual strike. But Israel has aerial refueling capability and strike fighters capable of the inland leg that could then be refueled over the Red Sea before returning to base. Israel thus also certainly has the capability to do something like this.

Were any other countries' airspace violated?

Why were the Egyptian authorities not notified? The decision to proceed with a direct strike that would take significant planning suggests that it was more important to destroy the convoy immediately than to trust the Egyptians with the intelligence.

Finally, this was not a strike of opportunity carried out by a UAV that happened to be in the area. As mentioned, if reports of the scale of the attack are accurate, refueling aircraft had to be in place and manned strike aircraft armed and briefed on the mission. Even on a contracted timetable, that takes actionable intelligence with significant longevity.

What was this intelligence and where did it come from?

All of this leads me to believe that the Israelis are not to blame. I can easily picture the Jew-haters in the current White House and their Media butt-boys salivating at the chance to blame the Israelis for dead terrorists, especially if they know better. I can also picture a small group of Israeli commandos doing this with drones and direct fire missiles,

If you can think of a better idea, let me know.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/03/25/report-obama-administration-backing-away-global-war-terror/

The Obama administration has ordered an end to use of the phrase "Global War on Terror," a label adopted by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department's office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, from whom the direction reportedly came, told the Post there was no guidance given from the agency and that it was merely the "opinion of a career civil servant."

The Obama administration's rhetoric has paralleled this idea, having used the "Global Contingency Operation" phrase for a month prior to the e-mail being sent.

Craig W. Duehring, assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower, also used the term last week.

"Key battlefield monetary incentives has allowed the Air Force to meet the demands of overseas contingency operations even as requirements continue to grow," he said in congressional testimony.

Critics have pleaded with the Obama administration to abandon the use of "Global War on Terror" because they say it mischaracterizes the nature of the enemy and its abilities.

The Obamas are finally being examined and found to be filled of hate for Whitey. Mrs Obama has so much class that she purposely snubs and even insults the British. I am so glad that this family is running our country.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/03/05/was_lady_macbeth_behind_barack_obamas_snub_of_gordon_brown

Consider her notorious statement that: "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." Consider her (till-recently suppressed) Princeton thesis, "Princeton Educated Blacks And The Black Community."

In it she writes: "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

Here we see that she has mastered the authentic voice of grievance culture. She also - the thesis was written in 1985 - pre-empts the Macpherson report's ludicrous, catch-all definition of racism: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." No matter how hard young Michelle's white undergraduate contemporaries try to be nice, it's not their behaviour that counts, but how Michelle feels.

More worrying, though, and dangerous, than young Michelle's desperate quest for validation through victimhood is the other strain within her thesis. "As I enter my final year at Princeton," she writes. "I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals at Princeton are not as clear as before."

This is an outrage! Why is the UN still allowed to operate in the US? They should have been banned at least a decade ago. They have been increasingly irrelevant to the Free World since the Great Communist Collapse.

Now we know where out of power Communists and failed tyrants end up. Why should the US foot the bill for this kind of abuse? If they want to investigate criminal activity, this "top UN official" should know all about it since he is/was the friend of a Communist tyrant who used death squads and torturers to keep his peons in line. Isn't that right Senor Brockmann? You support killing people for disliking you and your friends? And you shift the blame to the people who would really like to help those same victims of your abuse?

I can crap stuff that is smarter than most UN "diplomats".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504965,00.html

A top U.N. official accused the United States of committing inhuman "atrocities" in Iraq and Afghanistan during a speech Wednesday to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

"The aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations," said U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann.

D'Escoto claimed that U.S. actions have directly led to more than a million Iraqi civilian deaths since 2003, a vastly inflated figure that does not correspond with the U.N.'s own estimates.

The U.N.'s health and medical agency, the World Health Organization, says 151,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion. IraqBodyCount.org puts the death toll between 90,000- 99,245.

...D'Escoto, once the foreign minister for the Communist Sandinista government of Nicaragua, ...

Why is it that so many of The One's henchmen are found to be criminals? It is unnerving to watch the "most open and honest" administration since the "most ethical administration ever" of the Clintons? Maybe I can get some cash together to buy a seat? I am not sure I am unethical enough to be a Democrat, but I can try! Who wants to bribe me?

I do take small and large amounts! I have a Cabinet position to buy!

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/02/28/2009-02-28_buildings_sprang_up_as_donations_rained_.html

The man who is President Obama's newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money, a Daily News probe found.

Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion often received contributions just before or after he sponsored money for projects or approved important zoning changes, records show.

Most donations were organized and well-timed.

In one case, a developer became a Carrion fund-raiser two months before the borough president signed off on his project, raising more than $6,000 in campaign cash.

In another, eight Boricua College officials came up with $8,000 on the same day for Carrion three weeks before the school filed plans to build a new tower. Carrion ultimately approved the project and sponsored millions in taxpayer funds for it.

Carrion resigned as borough president effective Sunday and begins his new job as director of the White House Office on Urban Policy Monday.

If the Liberals or the Media, is there a difference?, were to allow the Republican voice to be heard then there would no way to say the Republicans have no plan. By ignoring and silencing the Right, the Left can then blame the Right for not speaking out. What a plan!

This is why blogs and talk radio have come around. And why those same voices need to be silenced by the Left with the New Fairness Doctrine.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-politics-of-four-percent-mortgages/

First, let's be clear as to how much money falling mortgage rates can put in consumers' pockets. The average home price is about $200,000, and let's assume that entire amount is financed with a 6% mortgage. A reduction to 4% would save the homeowner $4,000 in interest costs every year. Multiply that by the 85 million homes in America and we get $340 billion in interest savings.

And this isn't a one-time economic stimulus. That $4,000 is a permanent reduction in household expenses that the borrower can rely upon, as long as they continue to make their mortgage payment. Imagine the boost that could provide to the economy and the pressure it could take off America's cash-strapped families. It may even jump-start the new home sales market.

If a straightforward mortgage rate reduction that puts $340 billion in homeowners' pockets every year and could slow or stop further housing declines sounds like a simpler and better alternative than the $787 billion of phony tax rebates and pork barrel spending that was just passed by the Democratic Congress, then you're probably starting to understand why this Republican alternative wasn't widely debated.

What's even more egregious is that as the massive spending bill was being written in marathon backroom deal-making sessions, President Barack Obama continued to make the false claim that Republicans wanted to do nothing in the face of the crisis. This proposal for lowering home mortgage rates was just one of many alternatives that was introduced by the Republicans, including Senator Lindsey Graham's package of personal and corporate tax cuts.

The mortgage rate reduction proposal was killed, not because Democrats didn't agree with it, but precisely because it was a reasonable alternative that could have sparked intelligent discussion on the best way to improve the economy. When you're trying to push an $800 billion spending spree through Congress in the dead of night, the last thing you want is an intelligent discussion. But the fear mongering and false choices worked and the stimulus bill was passed. Where does that leave interest rates? Falling quickly most likely. Now the Democrats need the economy to recover to ensure a 2010 reelection, and the easiest way to do that is to keep interest rates and mortgage rates as low as possible.

I highlighted two parts of this story that are slanted.

First, the crowd was not laughing at the thought of Chicago being nuked, they were laughing at the thought of Liberals thinking one nuked city is morally different from ten.

Second, if this is the objective mainstream media, why are they making wisecracks?

This report is not objective at all. It is mocking and almost slanderous.

Besides, Mr Bolton is right. Allowing the Iranians and their terrorist followers access to nuclear weapons is foolish. It does not matter if they have one Bomb or twenty, it is still too many.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Crowd-Laughs-at-Nuclear-Threat-to-Chicago.html

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday, had the audience in stitches with his comments about nuking Chicago.

Referencing remarks made by Barack Obama on the campaign trail, Bolton claimed the then-candidate said he thought "Iran was a tiny threat."

Crowd Laughs at Nuclear Threat to Chicago NBC Chicago.flv

ThinkProgress.org reported that Bolton tried to up the fear quotient in the room by raising the prospect of an Iranian-sent nuclear attack on an American city."

"It's [a] tiny [threat] compared to the Soviet Union," Bolton said to the group, "but is the loss of one American city -- pick one at random: Chicago -- is that a tiny threat?"

The audience erupted in cheers and laughter at the idea of Obama's home city being obliterated.

Unfortunately for Bolton, he got the then-candidate's quote wrong. Speaking in Pendelton, Ore., on May 18 last year, Obama said "strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'" [YouTube Video]

We surmise that must mean the joke... well, bombed.

GWP has put together a great sample of how horrible things are going to be economically. This could be a good read, unless you have a weak heart.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-barack-obama-depression-president.html

The markets continue to predict the outcome of Barack Obama's failed economic policies of massive spending and record deficits.

Things don't look so good right about now.
Team Obama projects a record $1.75 trillion budget deficit this year: