Visit Counter

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Democrats block Keystone pipeline, but GOP vows new fight when it takes over




This is an interesting development by the Dem's. Americans by a margin of 73% want Keystone passed. Have they learned anything from the last election? Barry can't be reelected (except by executive order) so the Dem's in the senate should be looking over their shoulder. This was their golden opportunity to take the credit. I can hear it now...Today we created thousands of jobs and became more energy independent blah,blah,blah.....
Yes, but Barry would veto it you say? Maybe not. In 2015 when the GOP owns Congress, the Democrats who value their jobs, will be on board to pass Keystone. Perhaps in a veto proof vote. On the other hand if they get say 64 votes instead of the mandatory 67 to override the veto the "party" of no will then reside in the WH.

Related post

 I can see it now... 

------------------------------------------------------------


Senate Democrats blocked a move Tuesday to compel construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, dealing a sharp loss to one of their own, Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), who had pinned her chances for reelection on approval of the measure.

The vote was a victory for environmental activists who have turned defeat of the pipeline into one of the central symbolic causes of their movement. But Republicans, who will take majority control of the Senate in the next Congress, vowed to return to the fight next year.

On a 59 to 41 roll call, Landrieu’s campaign fell one vote shy of passing legislation meant to force President Obama to approve the nearly 1,700-mile, $7.6 billion project, which would deliver 830,000 barrels of oil a day from western Canada to the American heartland. With just 14 Democrats backing it, Landrieu’s bill fell victim to a filibuster by her own party. All 45 Republicans voted for the measure.

In rejecting the bill, the Senate has granted Obama a temporary reprieve from a difficult decision: whether to side with the environmentalists who have been his staunch allies or with many moderate Democrats who hope to use the issue to win over swing voters.

Already six years in the making, the Keystone fight had become a final rallying cry for Landrieu, a three-term senator facing a runoff election Dec. 6. With her Keystone campaign, she placed a political bet on demonstrating both her clout in Washington and her independence from a very unpopular Obama.


The first thing to know about the Keystone pipeline? It already exists. Here's a breakdown of the pipeline's various parts. (Gillian Brockell, Jhaan Elker and Kate M. Tobey/The Washington Post)

She already faced a steep climb in a conservative state dominated by energy interests, and her task is now even tougher; if she loses next month, Republicans will hold a majority with 54 seats come January, up from their current 45-seat caucus.

“This is for Americans, for an American middle class,” Landrieu pleaded Tuesday evening, moments before the vote, arguing that jobs related to the pipeline would go to rural American communities struggling in the economic recovery. “The time to act is now.”

She then thanked her Democratic colleagues who supported her, including three who lost their elections this month. Once the roll call started, Landrieu stood mostly by herself in the chamber but at one point shared a hug with Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), one of the defeated incumbents.

Supporters argue that the new pipeline would lead to more efficient delivery of oil into domestic markets, helping secure a reliable source of energy, boosting the national economy and creating jobs tied to the pipeline’s construction. Opponents say it would facilitate the harvesting of oil from the environmentally dirty tar sands in Canada, leading to health risks, and would come online as domestic oil production is already booming.

After the vote Tuesday night, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), set to take over as majority leader, told his colleagues that he would bring up the pipeline “very early” next year.

Before the vote, the White House was careful not to issue a veto threat even as officials made it clear that Obama was likely to invoke one should the measure pass the Senate.

“It certainly is a piece of legislation that the president doesn’t support, because the president believes that this is something that should be determined through the State Department and the regular process that is in place to evaluate projects like this,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. He added that Obama’s senior advisers have recommended vetoes on “similar pieces of legislation” that have been introduced in the past.


After a 59-41 Senate vote rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline was announced on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed that the issue will resurface on the agenda of the new Congress in January. (AP)

But, as McConnell made clear, the issue will not disappear. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has also indicated that he will bring up the matter next year, once Republicans control both chambers. Ten of the Senate Democrats who voted yes will be back next year, adding to the 53 or 54 Republicans whose votes McConnell can count on.

That places the likely support for the pipeline in senatorial limbo — enough to pass a bill and send it to the White House, but a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

That prospect has led some supporters to suggest attaching it to a key spending bill or another must-pass measure, forcing a tougher political choice on the president.

Even some Democrats are open to using approval of Keystone XL as a negotiating chit in exchange for a significant policy concession from congressional Republicans, but it is unclear how receptive White House officials are to that idea.

After the Nov. 4 wipeout for Democrats, Landrieu was thrust into a runoff against Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). State rules require the winner to reach 50 percent of the vote; Landrieu received 42 percent to Cassidy’s 41 percent, as the remaining votes went mostly to other Republicans on the ballot.

With financial backing disappearing in the face of her long odds, Landrieu made passing the Keystone legislation her last-gasp attempt to show voters back home that she still had influence in Washington.

She had run her general-election campaign boasting of her chairmanship of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a gavel that she predicted would lead to tangible results for Louisiana. Landrieu has been a strong supporter of the oil and gas industry, well before and beyond the Keystone XL fight.

In the wake of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from BP’s Macondo well, Landrieu pushed the Obama administration to lift its moratorium on drilling in the gulf. She personally lobbied Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and put a hold on the nomination of Jack Lew to head the Office of Management and Budget, angering Obama.

“I would not be alone in telling you that Senator Landrieu is one of most influential and effective advocates for the industry that we have on the Hill regardless of party affiliation,” said Jim Noe, senior vice president and general counsel of Hercules Offshore, which provides marine support to offshore drillers.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), after years of tangling the chamber in knots when it came to the pipeline, relented to Landrieu last week and allowed Tuesday’s debate and vote, even though he remained opposed to the measure and advised Obama to veto it.

Under a bipartisan agreement, Landrieu was given a single vote on the legislation with a supermajority threshold of 60 votes. Last week, House Republican leaders allowed Cassidy to author and pass an identical measure, making Landrieu’s defeat more politically painful Tuesday.

Landrieu had predicted victory Monday night, telling reporters that she felt “very comfortable” with her ability to hit the magic number.

So as the debate began Tuesday, Landrieu’s biggest opponents — liberals such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee — were also her biggest supporters.

“Let the record be clear forever: This debate would not be before this body were it not for Sen. Landrieu’s insistence,” Boxer said in her opening remarks Tuesday morning.

Hours later, Boxer reiterated her praise: “Without Mary Landrieu we would not be having this debate.”





Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, November 19, 2014






The Cincinnati Observer


10:46 AM 11/18/2014

By
Moore Jobs




  Philadelphia -   Vice President Joe Biden speaking before the AWLD Adults with Learning Disabilities, which he is a member, stunned the conference announcing in a dramatic reversal he now remembers Gruber.  


(AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)


In the mutter of laughter his aides rushed to intervene informing him it was Goober not Gruber on the Andy Griffith Show. 

When reporters called into question Biden's remarks President Obama and Nancy Pelosi had no comment. 









Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The smoking gun!





You have to wonder after F&F, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, (to name a few) how much longer the MSM can remain compliant. Its pretty shameful when the only source of information from the national networks are the commercials!

Now this:
Yet another video surfaces (not Gruber… Barry) proving both he and Pelosi are liars. 

Remember when they said they he never heard of Jonathan Gruber? 

Barry issued this statement:


“The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed his opinion that I completely disagree with — it is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”


Life after lie after lie and still no response from the news media.
Why do we even have a news media? 

Evidently Democrats don't know what a video camera is because it seems they are completely unaware records are kept.

------------------------------------------------


Article from the Daily Caller



Obama: ‘I Have Stolen Ideas Liberally’ From Jon Gruber 




President Barack Obama and a long list of Democrats are now arguing that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber wasn’t intimately involved in writing Obamacare, but yet another video shows Obama admitting that he’s “stolen ideas” from Jon Gruber himself — “liberally.”

Obama spoke at the Brookings Institution in a video posted by the conservative group American Commitment on Monday. The president was touting his policy ideas, which stemmed from what he called some of the “brightest minds from academia and policy circles.”

WATCH:

Video 98


Now that some of Gruber’s more outlandish statements about the health-care law have come to light, Obama has suddenly become less generous about Gruber’s role in authoring the law.

“The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama said Monday in Australia.

But Gruber advised Obama’s first campaign in 2006 and went to the White House at least a dozen times while Obama’s been in office, in addition to receiving an almost $400,000 contract to advise on the health-care law.

His comments about a 2009 strategy meeting about Obamacare’s Cadillac tax on high-value health plans at the White House have sparked considerable outcry about the administration intentionally hiding some parts of the law from the public.

“He is like, ‘Look, I can’t just do this,’” Gruber said Obama explained at the 2009 round-table meeting. “‘It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?’” And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic.”

And in one of the most stark displays, a 2012 release from the Obama campaign itself said that Gruber himself “helped write Obamacare.”

In a press release after a debate with Gov. Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign depicted Gruber as a full-fledged architect of Obamacare in order to take a hit at Romney’s anti-Obamacare rhetoric, as Gruber worked for the Romney administration as well. The release cited a Bloomberg article which quoted Gruber, hailing him as “Jon Gruber Who Helped Write Obamacare And The Massachusetts Health Care Law.”

Gruber was also personally featured in a three-minute Obama campaign commercial which also sought to associate Romney’s health-care plan with Obama’s, as noted by Slate last week. In that 2012 commercial, Gruber’s lauded as a “health consultant to both Romney & Obama administrations.”



Share/Bookmark

Monday, November 17, 2014

Who waved the magic wand?





Unless you live in a cave everybody knows Barry is about to break the oath he swore... To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by granting amnesty to illegals. The shit is really going to hit the fan on this one! Even the MSM, his trusted ally, may not be able to save him.
If he thought this was a wonderful idea, the American people would just love it, why wait until after the election to make the proclamation?

Declaring amnesty puts Barry on really thin ice. I'm talking impeachment. I brought this up once before and I was told...They'll never impeach the first black president. That was then this is now. An exit poll conducting by Kellyanne Conway's The Polling Company found that three-quarters (74%) of voters believed that "President Obama should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration."

So what do we have? In 2015 the GOP owns the House and Senate with 74% of Americans thinking granting amnesty is wrong. Add this to all his other scandals and you would think slam dunk impeachment. It won't be. Within the realm of possibility? Most definitely.

 A montage of Barry acknowledging he doesn't have the authority to grant amnesty. Could he be any more explicit? You be the judge. 

Video 97



Barry to a tee.

Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

George Orwell



Doesn't the rule of law differentiate us from countries such as Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and North Korea?

So how will Barry Chavez suddenly get the authority? Personally I think his lap dog Stedman has a lot to do with it. If you recall  he told lie, after lie, after lie, in the F&F debacle he created. Eventually Stedman ran out of lies and couldn't stonewall the investigation any longer so Issa and his crew could now finally tighten the noose. We all know what happened. Barry came to his rescue claiming Executive Privilege. The problem is you can't evoke Executive Privilege to cover up a crime. Nixon learned that the hard way. We'll never know the total death toll racked up by Stedman. But we do know Barry set him free with no repercussions especially from his other lap dog the MSM. I'm not suggesting Executive Privilege is the same as an Executive Order. Then again... Barry may believe if I could get away with setting Stedman free I could do the same for illegals.  




In the 50's under Eisenhower we were deporting illegals. Now we're importing. 


 I wonder what Lou Costello would say if he were alive today:



He can't grant amnesty but now he can? Isn't this the same guy who said you could keep your insurance? 












Share/Bookmark

Sunday, November 16, 2014

The Amnesia Contagion




There is an outbreak in DC rivaling Ebola. The Amnesia Contagion. 


First Pelosi contracted it and now it's infected Barry. Pelosi claimed earlier this week "she never heard of Jonathan Gruber". Later a video surfaced from 2009 with Pelosi naming Jonathan Gruber as the architect of ObamaCare. Undeniable, irrefutable, evidence she is a lair.

Now Barry's claiming:

“I just heard about this,” Obama said at a new conference, after wrapping up two days of meetings with world leaders here at the G-20 Summit. “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed his opinion that I completely disagree with — it is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

 How come we always find out stuff before he does?

Barry just heard about it has a familiar ring to it.  (He must have been watching FOX because there was very little coverage from the MSM.) "Some adviser who never worked on our staff."  I guess we're supposed to forget the fact Gruber signed in 19 times... a record kept in the WH log book. Are we to believe he was paid $400,000 to fix the toilet?

Not to get sidetracked but lets not misinterpret Gruber. He's not coming clean in the videos because of a guilty conscience. Oh no, what he's doing is bragging about how he pulled the wool over the eyes of the American voter. In one of the videos he stated/bragged about driving with his kids and how excited they got when they asked, "Who was that on the phone" and he said, "The president of the United States." I guess requesting someone to look at his phone records would be asking too much. Where's Snowden when you need him?

So there you have it. Barry and Pelosi never heard of Gruber.
 In a strong show of support Joe Biden issued the following statement:

"There is no such thing as MIT university."





---------------------------------------------------------






Obama dismisses renewed criticism of health care law

BRISBANE, Australia — President Obama dismissed renewed criticism of his signature health care law Sunday and disputed an assertion from a former architect of the policy who claimed the administration had deceived lawmakers.

Jonathan Gruber, an economist, suggested last year that the administration’s signature health-care legislation passed in part because of the “stupidity of the American voter” and a “lack of transparency” over its funding mechanisms. 

“I just heard about this,” Obama said at a new conference, after wrapping up two days of meetings with world leaders here at the G-20 Summit. “The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed his opinion that I completely disagree with — it is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

It marked the first time Obama has weighed in on the video, which became public after he left Washington for a week-long trip to Asia. Gruber is an MIT economics professor and health care policy expert who was a paid consultant for the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act. 

His remarks were captured on a video that recently surfaced on social media and have been seized on by Republicans who want to dismantle the law. Conservatives in both chambers of Congress said they might call on Gruber to testify on Capitol Hill, a process that would reopen the ugly political fight over a law that has already enrolled millions of Americans in new health care plans. 

“We had a year-long debate,” Obama said. “Go look back at your stories. One thing we can’t say is that we didn’t have a lengthy debate over health care in the United States. Every press outlet here should go back and pull up every clip and every story. It’s fair to say there is not a provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and was not fully transparent.”

(That's the problem...they did)






Share/Bookmark

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Not only did he call American voters stupid...





He made over $2 million screwing them! 


But to put it in proper context, the good professor > Liberals< , is rightfully calling you stupid. Why? A vote for Obama was a vote for ObamaCare. How do you like being taken for a sucker? "You can keep your insurance period"     "ObamaCare won't cost one dime". "You'll get a raise from your employer because premiums will go down 3000%". 
All a pack of lies with videos to prove it. In fact most of the enrollees in ObamaCare are the same people who had their insurance cancelled because of ObamaCare. You can't say you weren't forewarned about the pitfalls ...no bill of this magnitude has ever been rammed through without one Republican vote. This should have been a tip off.



Click to enlarge





------------------------------------------------------------



Republicans are demanding hearings into videos that have emerged in recent days of MIT professor Jonathan Gruber making impolitic remarks about the Affordable Care Act. 

Why should Gruber's comments matter? Because Gruber is well-known in health-care circles as one of the intellectual godfathers of Obamacare and the very similar law in Massachusetts (sometimes called Romneycare), though people involved in ACA deny he was "an architect" of the ACA. (House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) claimed she did not know who he is, even though she once had touted his work.) 

Barrasso, in the Fox News interview, said Gruber's comments about the "stupidity of the American voter" were so reprehensible that "he ought to just give the money back." 

Did Gruber really earn nearly $400,000 from the administration — and if so, why? 




The Facts 


In 2009, just one month after President Obama took office, the Department of Health and Human Services put out a sole-source solicitation titled "Technical Assistance in Evaluating Options for Health Reform." The contract would be with Gruber, who the document said was the only person "reasonably available to satisfy agency requirements." 


As the agency put it, "Dr. Gruber developed a proprietary statistically sophisticated micro-simulation model that has the flexibility to ascertain the distribution of changes in health care spending and public and private sector health care costs due to a large variety of changes in health insurance benefit design, public program eligibility criteria, and tax policy." 


The model, the Gruber Microsimulation Model, is the coin of the realm, in large part because it is similar to the model used by the Congressional Budget Office. That means administration policy-makers could predict with reasonable certainty how CBO would score legislation. Given that legislation in Washington often falls or rises depending on the CBO score, that made this model a very powerful tool for administration officials. 


The first four months of the contract could not be found on the FedBizOpp.gov Web site, but in June 2009, HHS renewed the contract for eight months, with a value of $297,600. Gruber in an e-mail confirmed that the first part of the contract was for $95,000. 

That adds up to $392,600 — or "almost $400,000." 

Gruber's consulting was largely unknown at the time, and eventually it became an issue as he had been frequently quoted by journalists and lawmakers who may not have known of his connection to the administration; he also generally did not disclose his connection when writing opinion articles. 

In one especially fishy circumstance, Nancy-Ann DeParle, at the time director of the White House Office of Health Reform, wrote about Gruber's work on the White House blog on Nov. 29, 2009. "MIT Economist Confirms Senate Health Reform Bill Reduces Costs and Improves Coverage" was the headline on the post. 

DeParle made no reference to the fact that Gruber had already earned hundreds of thousands of dollars working for the administration. She described him as an "MIT economist who has been closely following the health insurance reform process." 

(The emphasis on reducing costs in Gruber's report is especially interesting in light of the Gruber video that emerged Thursday. "What the American public cares about is costs," Gruber said in 2010. "And that's why even though the bill that they made is 90 percent health insurance coverage and 10 percent about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control.") 

In any case, the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 has been lucrative for Gruber and his microsimulation model. All told, he has been hired by at least eight states to provide advice or assist in creating the health-insurance exchanges that are at the heart of the Affordable Care Act: Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. 

Not all of the contracts could be found on public Web sites, but here is a sampling. In some cases, Gruber worked with other consultants, so the fees were shared. These figures also might not represent the final payout, and of course these are gross figures, before expenses. But it's safe to say that about $400,000 appears to be the standard rate for gaining access to the Gruber Microsimulation Model. 


Michigan: $481,050 

Minnesota: $329,000 

Vermont: $400,000 

Wisconsin: $400,000 


Gruber has also earned more than $2 million over the last seven years for an ongoing contract with HHS to assess choices made by the elderly in Medicare's prescription-drug plan.






Share/Bookmark

Thursday, November 13, 2014

A lying bitch...no two ways about it!





Remember when Pelosi said she didn't know anything about waterboarding? Later it was proven she lied.  Well this one tops that.

Her infamous quote... "You have to vote for ObamaCare to find out what's in it" has come back to bite her on the ass.

Speaking of ass this has Pelosi written all over it. She must think no one keeps a record of what she says.



This is her take on Gruber one of the architects of Obamacare who called American voters stupid for falling for their scam.


Pelosi in 2014

Video 95


 She never heard of Gruber right?


Pelosi 2009

Video 96



What is truly amazing in the liberal rectum of the United States California she gets elected without even campaigning.

Oh...and the IRS had nothing to do with targeting conservatives.







Share/Bookmark

Yet another video shows ObamaCare architect disparaging voter intelligence




I'm looking at this from two aspects. Gruber a college professor who graduated from MIT is one of the architects of ObamaCare. He called the American voter "stupid" for being duped. But to give some credence to what he said...Barry was elected not once but twice!

That said. One would have to question Gruber's own intelligence. This is now the third video in which Gruber admits ObamaCare was written, as he puts it, in a "tortured way" to deliberately deceive the American voter.

To cover his ass he now comes up with this:

"I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments."


"Off the cuff" and "inappropriately" are liberaleze for telling the truth. He takes his cue from the NYT's who reported Barry misspoke when he said, "You can keep your insurance period no matter what." Just how can you misspeak 27 times? 

---------------------------------------------------------



Please allow a few seconds to load.

Video 94



Yet another video has surfaced of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber crediting the passage of the health care bill in part to American voters’ lack of intelligence.

The Daily Caller posted the third video Wednesday of the MIT professor, this time speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012.

Gruber was discussing the law’s so-called "Cadillac tax,” which he said was helped along by “hero” then-Sen. John Kerry. The “Cadillac tax” mandates that insurance companies be taxed rather than policy holders. He said that taxing individuals would have been “politically impossible,” but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn't understand the difference.

“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

The new video follows a second tape played on Fox News' "The Kelly File” Tuesday that showed Gruber speaking on a similar topic at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.

Referring to the "Cadillac tax,” he said: "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference."

This was similar to remarks he made at a separate event around the same time in 2013. In a clip of that event, Gruber said the "lack of transparency" in the way the law was crafted was critical. "Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass," he said. 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, traveling with President Obama in Burma, said he disagrees with Gruber's comments. 

Earnest claimed the bill was written in a transparent way and that it's Republicans who aren't transparent about how they would replace it. 

After the first tape surfaced -- prompting Republican outrage -- Gruber went on MSNBC to express regret. On Tuesday, he said: "I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments."

But after Fox News played the second tape, GOP lawmakers said it proves what they've been saying all along.

"It confirms people's greatest fear about the government," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News on Wednesday. "Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi who said first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it."

As Congress returns for a lame-duck session, on the heels of midterm elections where Republicans won control of the Senate, GOP leaders say they will try once again next year to repeal the law -- or least change its most controversial provisions.


Click to enlarge












Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Opium Crop at Record High in Afghanistan








Guess you just don't get much for a $7.6-billion eradication program nowadays. 

WTF happened to the money? Does anyone monitor where our money goes? 

BTW...this is so typical of Muslims. Why grow tomatoes when you can grow a crop which destroys millions of lives around the world each year.

------------------------------------------------




An annual survey of opium cultivation in Afghanistan has confirmed previous reports that the farming of poppies has reached an all-time high.


The Muslim mindset. 
Believes alcohol is immoral but produces heroin for a living.



The survey, conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Afghanistan's Ministry of Counternarcotics, comes less than a month after Washington's Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, called the effectiveness of the United States' $7.6-billion eradication programs into question.

According to the UNODC survey, net opium cultivation reached 578,000 acres in 2014, an increase of 7% over 2013.

The upsurge is thought to be the result of increasing insecurity and the economic uncertainty caused by the recent presidential elections. Campaigning lasted for more than 10 months.

The number of provinces where more than 250 acres of land is devoted to opium production remained steady at 19, although there were slight changes in the list.

Helmand province, in the southwest, remains Afghanistan's narcotic hub, accounting for 46% of all cultivation.

The most startling changes were in mountainous Badakhshan province, where cultivation increased by 77% in 2014.

In August, Noor Ahmad, a provincial council candidate in Badakhshan, was arrested while smuggling 648 pounds of opium.

Dr. Nilofar Ibrahimi, a parliamentarian from Badakhshan, said in an interview with The Times that the numbers from the province highlight the failures of Afghan and foreign anti-narcotics efforts.

Ibrahimi said government efforts have turned a blind eye to organized crime.

Everyone at every level -- from the highest ministers to the lowest worker with access to a transport vehicle or a border crossing -- is involved. - Dr. Nilofar Ibrahimi

"Everyone at every level — from the highest ministers to the lowest worker with access to a transport vehicle or a border crossing — is involved," she said.

Rather than targeting criminals at the core of the drug trade, Ibrahimi said, counter-narcotics efforts have jailed "the wrong people," farmers and small-time traffickers.

In the last three years, Badakhshan has become increasingly dangerous. Along with banditry and kidnapping, the armed opposition has staged several operations in the province's districts.










Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Times They Are A-Changin'






(Click to enlarge)









Share/Bookmark

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Sinking to a new low in stupidity





Get a load of this. They want this guy to change the name of his restaurant "illegal pete's" because its 'offensive to immigrants'... meaning illegals!




If one is truly an immigrant who came here legally why would they be offended?

The good townspeople don't want to offend the "inhabitants" who broke our laws, jumped the fence, entering the country illegally. What is the rationale here? I can't understand why any American would support anybody, regardless of race, entering the country illegally. WTF do we have laws for?

After reading this article I came to the conclusion the guy who owns the restaurant is just as stupid as those who oppose the name!

---------------------------------------------------------------



Owner of Mexican restaurant 'Illegal Pete's' won't change name 'offensive to immigrants' because it memorializes his father who died of cancer

• The restaurant in Denver, Colorado has been named Illegal Pete's for years and owner Pete Turner says the name wasn't meant to offend

• Pete wrote on the restaurant's website that when he was opening the restaurant, his father, also named Pete, was battling cancer

• Last month, Colorado residents urged Pete to change the name of his business due to its 'social context' but he says he won't budge 

By Alexandra Klausner for MailOnline and Charlene Adams


Published: 18:19 EST, 7 November 2014 | Updated: 18:19 EST, 7 November 2014




A Mexican restaurant owner says he won't change the name of his establishment some community members find offensive to illegal immigrants.

The restaurant in Denver, Colorado has been named Illegal Pete's for many years and owner Pete Turner says the name wasn't meant to offend and was named after his rambunctious father with whom he shared a name.

Turner wrote a blog post on the restaurant's website saying that he 'appreciates' the community's concern but says that they vastly misunderstood the meaning of his restaurant's name and what it stands for.



Illegal Pete: Pete Turner said he never meant to offend illegal immigrants and that the restaurant is named after his father and after a bar in a novel he read as an English major at the University of Boulder 

Thanks for the apology. I feel better now.



'When it came to the name Illegal Pete's, I settled on the name of a bar in a novel. The name resonated with me for the obvious reason that my name is Pete, but of equal importance, it was my father's name.'

Pete wrote on the restaurant's website that when he was opening the restaurant, his father was battling cancer.

'My father, who helped me secure the financing for the restaurant, was terminally ill with cancer, having battled stage 4 Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma since 1989. He was never able to work in the restaurant, but he was my moral support during the months leading up to opening and the two years of operation up to his death in August 1997. Needless to say, he was a fighter, and I liked that he and I could share the ins and outs of this business,' writes Pete.

The restaurant's mission statement is, 'To create an atmosphere that celebrates individuality and relaxed human connection.'




Fort Collins: Nearly 50 Fort Collins residents gathered at a meeting last month to demand that Turner change the name of the restaurant, just weeks before the new location's opening



Pete said he has chosen to brand the restaurant in several different ways but said none of those branding had an emphasis on illegal immigrants, reportsFox. 

Last month, Colorado residents urged Pete to change the name of his business due to its 'social context.'

Pete Turner listened to a concerned crowd in Fort Collins in October as they urged him to change the name of his business, saying it was offensive to immigrants, according to the Coloradoan.

CBS Denver reports that nearly 50 people attended the meeting including community members and Colorado State University students and faculty.

Turner reportedly told the crowd that the name is a literary reference to a bar in a novel he read as an English major in Boulder.

Turner also told the crowd that he has helped pay for some of his employees to become citizens.

But crowd member, Lucy Gonzales, 25, told Pete to drop the 'illegal' -- or 'I-word' -- in the name and many likened the term to racial slurs toward African-Americans.

Kim Medina, Fort Collins immigration attorney and meeting moderator, said the issue was one of a social nature.

'Social context is hugely important,' Medina said at the meeting.

'We'll never get to big issues, such as immigration reform, until we can solve these smaller issues of language.'

The meeting comes almost three weeks before Turner is scheduled to open a new 'Illegal Pete's' in the town, according to the Coloradoan.

Turner's attendance at the meeting was prompted by a letter written to him from Antero Garcia, Colorado State University assistant English professor, the Coloradoan reports.

In the letter, Garcia wrote: 'The restaurant will be located in the same area that current Fort Collins residents remember often seeing signs saying 'No dogs or Mexicans.'

It is under this legacy of American racist practices that the name 'Illegal Pete's' becomes unacceptable.'

And at the meeting, Garcia said that Turner's restaurant would instil violence in the community.

After many shared personal experiences about growing up in Fort Collins during times of harsh racial discrimination, Turner said he couldn't imagine living that way, CBS reports.

Though he could empathize with the group, Turner said he did not realize the issue was one regarding free speech and said he believes he has a right to name his business whatever he chooses.

Cheryl Distaso, coordinator of the social justice non-profit Fort Collins Community Action Network, said that the restaurant's name is dehumanizing and she is confident that Turner will 'do the right thing.'











Share/Bookmark