Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | June 30, 2010

Holder Accused of Racism

But I thought black racism was impossible?

A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

“I mean we were told, ‘Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'” Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.

The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others “based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law.”

But Adams told Fox News that politics and race was at play in the dismissal.

“There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases,” Adams told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly.

Adams says the dismissal is a symptom of the Obama administration’s reverse racism and that the Justice Department will not pursue voting rights cases against white victims.

Adams told Fox News that the New Black Panther case was the “easiest I ever had at the Justice Department.

“It doesn’t get any easier than this,” he said. “If this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will.”

Because the EPA demands 99.9985% purity.

Seriously?

Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn’t good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million — if water isn’t at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

When ships in U.S. waters take in oil-contaminated water, they are forced to store it. As U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the official in charge of the clean-up operation, explained in a press briefing on June 11, “We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water–the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10% or 15% on that.” In other words, U.S. ships have mostly been removing water from the Gulf, requiring them to make up to 10 times as many trips to storage facilities where they off-load their oil-water mixture, an approach Koops calls “crazy.”

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | June 30, 2010

Finally

And… Tennessee is following Arizona’s footsteps.  May the will of the people continue to spread.

As a side note, a lefty blogger on the same site has posted the usual bullcrap about “law enforcement arresting innocents, yada yada.”

Seems to me the above headline could also read, People arrested to determine immigration status. What’s the next “duty” law enforcement will be asked to perform? Checking to see if all taxes are paid?

The commenters aren’t amused:

How can this be viewed as racial profiling, if jailers check all inmates for legal residency?

Uh, yes…it actually *is* law enforcement’s duty to enforce the law, including tax law and immigration law. Who did you think enforced the law, the ladies at the DMV?

Even stipulating that “profiling” is a “bad” thing, how is it “profiling” if the immigration status of EVERY arrestee (ie regardless of gender, age or physical appearance) is checked?

Put a little differently, for those who believe its a travesty for law enforcement officer to actually enforce the immigration laws, when is it EVER appropriate to determine whether or not someone is in the country illegally?

WOW! Talk about an incredible leap of logic. Suddenly checking on the immigration status of an inmate magically becomes WE’RE ARRESTING INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR NO REASON!

What? You definitely embarrassed yourself here Mr. Silence.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | June 30, 2010

The Rahn Curve

I’m not a big fan of Dan Mitchel’s whiny sounding voice, but this is an interesting video.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | June 30, 2010

Mike Lee, Demagogue

The Republican Primary that took place last week basically picked our next senator. And I’m furious about the result.

Mike Lee, the winner, is a shameless demagogue, and, as Sarah pointed out on the way home from Bridgewater’s Election Results Party in Salt Lake, he won this race because he shares that trait with Obama.

His entire campaign was based on smearing Bridgewater. An equally shameless demagogue, Glenn “God’s Gift to Radio” Beck, joined in on something he knew nothing about, throwing Mike Lee the easy questions after reluctantly agreeing to have Bridgewater on as well.  Meanwhile, Jim DeMint decided to get a Senator in Utah who is sympathetic to his state’s need for a nuclear dump. Bob Lonsberry was fired from KNRS, days before the primary, after making the mistake of opposing Mike Lee. Lee represented KNRS’s top advertiser, EnergySolutions, in their attempt to bring nuclear waste to Utah.

All of those things should have backfired on him, but they worked as intended. Why? Why can’t people see through the demagoguery? Why can’t people see that they are being manipulated?

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | May 21, 2010

Everbody Draw Mohammed Day — The Aftermath

Well, Facebook took down the page for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.  Stupid cowards.

EDIT: As of the 21st, it’s back up.  Apparently one of the administrators had his information hacked, and he closed the site in a hurry.  It’s back up without him now.

The good news?  It seems to have done fairly well.  Reason had a nice piece on the event yesterday.

The winners of Reason’s “Everybody Draw Mohammed” day contest are:

Translation:

This is not a pipe.

It’s Muhammad.

Connect the dots Mohammed!  Yay!

And, lastly, my favorite:

Where’s Mohammed?

Hint:  He’s the little black robed figure in the upper right. =-P

Tune in next year!  Actually, I think one of these days would be best at least once a month, but until I can get that idea through a subcommittee, we’ll stick with annual.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | May 21, 2010

Mohammad, Take 2

And here is the beautiful picture.  It took a grand total of 10 minutes.  Hey, at least I tried. =-P

mohammad

Mohammad, Take 2

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | May 21, 2010

Ready… Set… Go!

Sorry, I’ve been a bit busy today.  I didn’t have time to do a detailed Mohammad.  =-(

But, not to worry.  I’ll post a decent ASCII Mohammad.  I hope.

Here’s a start:

___
(   )
-oo-
__

This is Mohammed.  Everybody say hi!

I may have something better by the end of the day, but don’t count on it.  I’m afraid ASCII Mohammad may be the best I’ll be able to do.  Better luck next year…

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | May 18, 2010

Draw Mohammed!

Well, it’s almost here.  The day for what will hopefully be the first of many free speech protests against Islamic censorship.

I’ve got a bunch of Muslims (or maybe it’s just one) protesting about this.  Eight comments in the last two days!  Apparently they didn’t look at the articles here, here and here.  Until about 1000 years after Mohammed died, drawings of him were commonplace.

The movement is growing in support.  The Facebook page has 39,000 people.  Google returns “About 1,030,000 results” for “everybody draw mohammed day”.  Even though the creator of the original poster backed out, there appears to be no stopping this thing.

And that is good.  If there is enough support for this movement, if enough people participate, maybe Muslims will get the hint that the rest of the world isn’t going to follow Muslim laws.  If they don’t want to look at images of their prophet, that is their decision.  They cannot force that principle on the rest of the world.

Posted by: Nathan Schulzke | May 18, 2010

Napolitano on Arizona Law

On RealClearPolitics.

John McCain:  Finally, if I might ask, have you had a chance to review the new law that was passed by the state of Arizona?

Janet Napolitano:  Uh, I have not reviewed it in detail.  I certainly know of it, Senator.

McCain:  So you’re not prepared to make a judgment on it.

Napolitano:  Senator, that is not a law, uh, let me just say this.  As you know and are well aware, that is not the kind of law I would have signed.

McCain:  And for what reason?

Napolitano:  Uh, well, because I believe that it’s a bad law enforcement law.  I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement, and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in.  When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation.

So, let me get this straight.  She hasn’t read a 20 page bill, but she thinks she is prepared to make a judgment on it?  This makes the second Obama Administration official to demonize the law without reading it.

Here’s Holder last week.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories