She said she wouldn't lie.
She said she wouldn't lie.
The New York Times has put together a very well done county by county interactive on the vast array of military eqquipment finding it's way into the weapons cache of your local police force.
Might make you wonder just exactly who it is they're gearing up for.
Click the image below for this fine bit of work from The New York Times.
Bout time those guys did some actual reporting.
The photo to the right is that of State Department Spokesperson Jennifer Psaki. Enjoy the following exchange between Jennifer and Associated press reporter, Matthew Lee during the Q&A following Ms. Psaki's announcement of the State Department's launch of the Third Annual "Free The Press Campaign", in which the Federal Government of the United States of America highlights "journalists or media outlets that are censored, attacked, threatened, or otherwise oppressed because of their reporting."
JENNIFER PSAKI: One more announcement for all of you: With World Press Freedom Day around the world on May 3rd, the department will launch its third annual Free the Press campaign later this afternoon in New York at the U.S. U.N. mission. Beginning on Monday and all of next week, we will highlight emblematic cases of imperiled reporters and media outlets that have been targeted, oppressed, imprisoned or otherwise harassed because of their professional work. The first two cases will be announced by Assistant Secretary -- Assistant Secretary Tom Malinowski later at the -- at U.S. U.N. And we invite you of course to follow Tom at Twitter, who has -- on Twitter who, as you all know, was just confirmed several weeks, @Malinowski and to keep up with human rights issues on DRL's website.
With that --
Q: Sure. Just on that, reporters who are, what, harassed? I'm sorry --
MS. PSAKI: Targeted, oppressed, imprisoned or otherwise harassed.
Q: Otherwise harassed. Does that include those who may have been targeted, harassed, imprisoned and otherwise whatever by the United States government?
MS. PSAKI: I'm --
MS. PSAKI: I think you're familiar with our Free the Press campaign, Matt, but --
Q: Fair enough. So it does not include those who might have been harassed by --
MS. PSAKI: We highlight, as we often do, where we see issues with media freedom around the world.
Q: Right, I understand. But you would say that you don't -- the U.S. does not believe that it has a problem with press freedom, or if it does, that it's not nearly as severe as the problems in other countries.
MS. PSAKI: We do not. I think we can look at many of the problems --
On media press freedom?
Oh. Go ahead. And then we'll go to you, (Paul ?).
Did you have another question on media press freedom, or --
Q: If I could just go back to the overall, in general, the administration does not regard attempting to prosecute American journalists as an infringement of press freedom?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure which case you're -- what you're referring to.
Q: Well, there's several cases that are out there right now. The one that comes -- springs to mind is the James Risen case, where the Justice Department is attempting to prosecute. I just want to be clear. I'm not trying to --
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I --
Q: I just want to know if you regard that as an infringement on press freedom or not. And I suspect that you do not, but I want to make sure that that's the case.
MS. PSAKI: As you know, and I'll, of course, refer to the Department of Justice, but the leaking of classified information is in a separate category. What we're talking about here, as you all know and unfortunately we have talk about on a regular basis here, is the targeting of journalists, the arrests, the imprisonment for simply exercising their ability to tell the story.
Q: Right. I understand that. And we're all, I'm sure, myself and all my colleagues, we're very appreciative of that.
But the reporters in question here have not leaked the information; they simply published it. So is it correct, then, that you don't believe -- you don't regard that as an infringement of press freedom?
MS. PSAKI: We don't. I don't have anything more to say on that case.
MS. PSAKI: Do we have a new topic?
Your government at work.
This one has well over three million hits by now, so maybe you've seen it.
We post it as an example of the attitude and quality of service being provided to the American people by the Federal Government of the United States of America.
Which service by the way, the American people are paying top dollar for.
Neither rain, nor sleet, nor a real long sidewalk .......
It seems that on average, Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that voted for air strikes on Syria collected 83% more in campaign contributions from defense contractors than did Senators who voted against.
We have nothing to add to the two fine columns we linked to above and encourage you to spend a couple minutes with either or better yet both, except to say if you're wondering how the United States Senate can ignore the will of 60% or so of the American people and vote the United States into yet another war, here's a likely answer.
The following chart is from Zero Hedge and also links to the piece from which it was taken.
It seems like Ike got it right.
Meet Giggles. she never got much older than she was when this picture was taken.
The State of Wisconsin in it's wisdom, just raided with heavily armed Sheriffs and DNR officers the animal shelter where she had been taken in order to euthanize this healthy orphaned fawn, because in Wisconsin it is illegal to possess "wildlife".
Meet Jennifer Niemeyer spokesperson for the Wisconsin DNR.
Ms. Niemeyer explains the necessity tor an armed raid on an animal shelter,
"IF A SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS GOING IN TO DO A SEARCH WARRANT ON A DRUG BUST, THEY DON'T CALL THEM AND ASK THEM TO VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER THEIR MARIJUANA OR WHATEVER DRUG THAT THEY HAVE.
Regarding having euthanized the orphaned fawn, Ms Niemeyer offers the following,
THE LAW REQUIRES THE DNR AGENTS TO EUTHANIZE ANIMALS LIKE GIGGLES BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR DISEASE ... AND DANGER TO HUMANS.
It is our strongly held opinion that it is only in Government that individuals this callous, thoughtless and devoid of reason could ever hope to attain a position of authority.
Click on either photo for the complete news report with video.
Shame on the entirety of the State of Wisconsin, it's DNR and Ms. Niemeyer.
When confronted with another example of the wholesale and blatant stupidity foisted on the citizens of this and pretty much every nation of the world by their smug but stupid supposed "public servants" we always think of Banksy.
And of course, Forest.
And then the morons wonder why all over the country, people are arming themselves.
"Those of you who 'go along to get along' have no backbone and destroy the foundation of courage. You are the enablers of those who are guilty of misconduct. You are just as guilty as those who break the code of ethics and oath you swore."
We just spent an hour and a half going through Mr. Dorner's "manifesto" for lack of a better word.
Whoa ..... is about all we can think to say.
Click on the above or Mr. Dorner's photo for the entire 6,000 or so word piece of work
To refresh your memory, about the only bipartisan piece of legislation to make it's way out of our hopelessly poisoned political system in years is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which offers up the following atrocity.
Subtitle D — Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL. — Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS. — A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. — The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Now, here's the question you might think to be asking yourself.
If someone can be held without trial until the "end of hostilities" how can they possibly seek to demonstrate that a charge of having "supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces" is false?
That's before you even begin to start wondering about the fact that the federal government has supported and partnered with Al Queda for a generation .... think Libya for just the most recent example.
Which of course makes most of both houses of Congress, the last two Presidents of the United States, not to mention the current front runner for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States along with likely most of the CIA, units of "Military Intelligence, and certain investment banks, bankers and hedge funds guilty as sin of this very charge.
Which of course makes it obvious to any thoughtful person that this statute will be pursued selectively.
Not to even mention the fact that Al Queda is an invention of, if not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal Government of the United States of America.
"We" of course meaning for purposes of this conversation, someone other than "Me".
So anyway, here's an eight minute or so interview with Chris Hedges who among others has sued the United States Government in order to have this piece of legislation overturned as unconstitutional, wherein he discusses the progress of his lawsuit.
Finally, you may wish to reflect on the absence of this issue from you evening news report.
As always, click on the photo for the entire piece.
Super Bowl City Leads on Energy Efficient Forefront
While the Baltimore Ravens and San Francisco 49ers compete to hoist the Vince Lombardi trophy this weekend, eco-friendly fans and city leaders in New Orleans are competing to maximize sustainability practices to the fullest.
To make this the greenest Super Bowl, the New Orleans Host Committee has partnered with fans and the community to offset energy use across the major Super Bowl venues. The exterior of the Mercedes-Benz Superdome features more than 26,000 LED lights on 96 full-color graphic display panels, designed to wash the building in a spectrum of animated colors, patterns and images. The system draws only 10 kilowatts of electricity -- equivalent to the amount of energy used by a small home -- and the lights are expected to last for many years before needing replacement.
Off the football field, New Orleans is embracing energy efficiency with help from the Energy Department. The city retrofitted four libraries using an integrative design approach -- adding motion sensor lights, energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, and upgrades to the building envelopes. These improvements helped cut the libraries’ energy costs by 30 percent and serve as a standard for other city-owned buildings. New Orleans streets feature more than 1,200 energy-efficient light fixtures. In addition to saving the city money on energy costs -- an estimated $70,000 annually -- the new lights help the city reduce routine maintenance due to their longer lifespan.
Embracing energy efficiency and renewable energy is having a profound impact on attracting developers and private industry in the New Orleans’ re-building efforts. The push to re-invent this destination city contributes to making Sunday’s game the greenest in Super Bowl history.
Somebody maybe should have told Beyonce' to dial it down a tad.