ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

by

President Obama having problems passing $60 Billion Infrastructure Bill

By Alexander Bolton – 10/28/11 06:00 AM ET

 

Senate Democrats will try to pass President Obama’s $60 billion infrastructure bill next week, despite the past opposition of a powerful Democratic chairwoman to a major component of the legislation.

The bill includes $10 billion for a national infrastructure bank, even though Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said last year she would “never” support such a proposal. 

Boxer’s committee has jurisdiction over transportation and infrastructure issues. She is working with Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the panel’s ranking Republican, on a two-year, $109 billion surface transportation authorization bill. 

Boxer spokeswoman Mary Kerr said her boss has recently expressed support for an infrastructure bank.

She pointed to a July statement in which Boxer voiced support but cautioned that the bank should not substitute for core federal transportation programs.

“Yes, we want [an] infrastructure bank; we love it; it is great. That is not the core program. But we should build support for it, but it is not the core program,” Boxer said at a committee hearing, according to a transcript provided by the panel. 

Boxer is one of two Democrats who in the past have criticized the policy components of the bill, the second installment of Obama’s jobs plan. 

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) opposed a similar infrastructure-heavy stimulus proposal last year when he was in the midst of one of the nation’s toughest Senate races. Bennet says he won’t block bringing the bill to the floor, but he’s not making any commitment to support its passage. 

Democratic leaders have had trouble keeping their caucus unified behind Obama’s jobs proposals. Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an independent who caucuses with Democrats, last week voted against a $35 billion funding package for teachers and first responders. 

Boxer urged a senior administration official last year to improve the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) instead of creating a new federal bureaucracy by setting up an infrastructure bank. 

“I’m just telling you now, this is really important. You may not have the support for an infrastructure bank in other committees,” Boxer told Roy Kienitz, Transportation undersecretary for policy. 

“I don’t even know about in this committee,” Boxer said. “But in other committees you may not have it and so you need to be open to using your other tools, such as TIFIA, and making it function more like an infrastructure bank.” 

Boxer expressed concern that an infrastructure bank could muddle transportation funds with general Treasury funds.

“My experience is when the funds go back to the general Treasury, then they don’t specifically get used for transportation,” she said. “That’s why I like the highway trust fund.” 

Kienitz said the administration envisioned the congressional Appropriations committees would make regular allocations to fund the bank. 

Boxer did not attend a press call last week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the infrastructure package. 

Senate Republican aides said Boxer’s support for the bill is lukewarm because it competes with her bipartisan proposal to fund transportation programs. 

Reid told reporters last week that the jobs bill slated for floor action would not leech political support from Boxer’s legislation.

“We have an unlimited need in this country, literally unlimited need in this country for infrastructure improvement and development,” Reid said. 

“And that bill is for a two-year period of time,” he said of Boxer’s legislation, contrasting it to the upcoming jobs bill. “This is a shot in the arm for the economy right now.”

Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has opposed a national infrastructure bank as an expensive and time-consuming expansion of bureaucracy. 

TheAmerican Roadand Transportation Builders Association supports the infrastructure bank but believes it will make only a modest contribution to the nation’s transportation needs.

Dave Bauer, vice president of government relations at the group, said there’s no guarantee that infrastructure bank funds would be used for transportation projects, as opposed to being spent on school, waterway or Internet broadband projects. 

“From a transportation standpoint, the infrastructure bank can certainly help, but there’s no guarantee the funds or a portion of the funds will be used for transportation, and it is in no way a substitute for the core federal surface transportation programs,” he said. 

Bauer noted that public-private projects funded by the bank would need a way to recoup costs to pay off private investors. He said transportation projects funded by the bank would likely include tolls to provide future revenue. 

Bennet will also have to reconcile his past opposition to a central component of the jobs package. Last year, during his reelection campaign, Bennet pledged to oppose a $50 billion infrastructure package Obama recommended to spur economic growth. 

“I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package,” Bennet said at the time, according to the Denver Post.

Other Democrats, including Missouri Senate candidate Robin Carnahan and former Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), criticized the proposal at the time. 

An aide to Bennet said it would be wrong to draw any correlation between last year’s proposal and the infrastructure installment of Obama’s new jobs plan. 

The aide said Bennet opposed last year’s plan because there were still unspent funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The aide said Bennet would vote to begin debating the $60 billion jobs bill, but declined to say whether his boss would support final passage.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/senate-archive/190369-infrastructure-legislation-on-agenda-despite-boxers-doubts

by

Israeli swaps 1027 prisoner’s for 1 Sgt.

By Abraham Rabinovich – Special to TheWashingtonTimes

Friday, October 28, 2011

 

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to execute a 1,000-for-1 prisoner exchange last week despite his frequently voiced opposition to such lopsided deals is seen by several Israeli military commentators as an effort to “clear the deck” before possibly undertaking an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Amir Oren, the veteran military analyst for Ha’aretz newspaper, took note of Israel’s exchanging 1,027 Palestinian convicts for army Staff Sgt. Gilad Schalit, who had been captured by Hamas in 2006. Mr. Oren wrote that the price paid by Mr. Netanyahuand Defense Minister Ehud Barak“can be interpreted only in a context that goes beyond that of the Gilad Schalit deal.”

He noted that Israeli leaders in the past have shown a readiness to absorb “a small loss” in order to attain a greater success, generally involving “some sort of military adventure.”

Mr. Oren also noted that, until recently, Mr. Netanyahuhad faced opposition to attacking Iran from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Mossad intelligence chief Meir Dagan. Both retired earlier this year and have been replaced by men believed to hold a different view on Iran.

Released Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit (second from right) walks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (second from left), Defense Minister Ehud Barak (left) and Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz at the Tel Nof Air base in southernIsraelon Oct. 18, 2011. Looking thin, weary and dazed, Schalit returned home Tuesday from more than five years of captivity in the Gaza Strip in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners whose joyful families greeted them with massive celebrations. (Associated Press/Defense Ministry)

The Islamic republic has not been a top agenda item since the outbreak of the Arab Spring. Yet Iran’s nuclear program, which Western nations believe is geared for making an atomic bomb, has remained a key concern, despiteTehran’s denials that it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

According to Israeli media reports, a shift in the Israeli government’s views on Iran might have prompted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s Middle East visit in April: His main mission was to pass on a warning from President Obama against any unilateral attack on Iran.

At a press conference with Mr. Barak in April, Mr. Panettastressed that any steps against Iran’s nuclear program must be taken in coordination with the international community.

This week, Jerusalem Post military correspondent Yakov Katz wrote that, with the Schalit chapter behind it, “Israelcan now move forward to deal with some of the other strategic problems it faces in the region, such as Iran’s nuclear program.” Had Israelfirst attacked Iran, Hamas‘ patron, it would have endangered the Schalit deal, Mr. Katz said.

Writing in Yediot Achronot, Alex Fishman said that for Mr. Netanyahu, who built a political career as a warrior on terror, the Schalit deal was a very courageous step, particularly in view of an estimate by Israel’s security services that 60 percent of Palestinians who are released in such exchanges return to terror.

“He took a risk in a certain area and thereby focused all our attention on much more troubling fronts — in distant Iranand in the Arab revolutions around us,” Mr. Fishman wrote. To deal with these problems, national consensus is necessary and the freeing of Gilad Shalit went far toward achieving that.

Mr. Orenoffered another insight that he says may point Mr. Netanyahutoward military action against Iran.

Although the prime minister failed to make any enduring mark on history during his previous term or so far during his present term, Mr. Netanyahu may see Iran as an opportunity to achieve his Churchillian moment, Mr. Oren wrote. “The day is not far off, Netanyahu believes, when Churchill will emerge from him.”

 

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to execute a 1,000-for-1 prisoner exchange last week despite his frequently voiced opposition to such lopsided deals is seen by several Israeli military commentators as an effort to “clear the deck” before possibly undertaking an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Amir Oren, the veteran military analyst for Ha’aretz newspaper, took note of Israel’s exchanging 1,027 Palestinian convicts for army Staff Sgt. Gilad Schalit, who had been captured by Hamas in 2006. Mr. Oren wrote that the price paid by Mr. Netanyahuand Defense Minister Ehud Barak“can be interpreted only in a context that goes beyond that of the Gilad Schalit deal.”

He noted that Israeli leaders in the past have shown a readiness to absorb “a small loss” in order to attain a greater success, generally involving “some sort of military adventure.”

Mr. Oren also noted that, until recently, Mr. Netanyahuhad faced opposition to attacking Iran from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and Mossad intelligence chief Meir Dagan. Both retired earlier this year and have been replaced by men believed to hold a different view on Iran.

Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit (second from right) walks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (second from left), Defense Minister Ehud Barak (left) and Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz at the Tel Nof Air base in southernIsraelon Oct. 18, 2011. Looking thin, weary and dazed, Schalit returned home Tuesday from more than five years of captivity in the Gaza Strip in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners whose joyful families greeted them with massive celebrations. (Associated Press/Defense Ministry)

The Islamic republic has not been a top agenda item since the outbreak of the Arab Spring. Yet Iran’s nuclear program, which Western nations believe is geared for making an atomic bomb, has remained a key concern, despiteTehran’s denials that it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

According to Israeli media reports, a shift in the Israeli government’s views on Iran might have prompted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s Middle East visit in April: His main mission was to pass on a warning from President Obama against any unilateral attack on Iran.

At a press conference with Mr. Barak in April, Mr. Panettastressed that any steps against Iran’s nuclear program must be taken in coordination with the international community.

This week, Jerusalem Post military correspondent Yakov Katz wrote that, with the Schalit chapter behind it, “Israelcan now move forward to deal with some of the other strategic problems it faces in the region, such as Iran’s nuclear program.” Had Israelfirst attacked Iran, Hamas‘ patron, it would have endangered the Schalit deal, Mr. Katz said.

Writing in Yediot Achronot, Alex Fishman said that for Mr. Netanyahu, who built a political career as a warrior on terror, the Schalit deal was a very courageous step, particularly in view of an estimate by Israel’s security services that 60 percent of Palestinians who are released in such exchanges return to terror.

“He took a risk in a certain area and thereby focused all our attention on much more troubling fronts — in distant Iranand in the Arab revolutions around us,” Mr. Fishman wrote. To deal with these problems, national consensus is necessary and the freeing of Gilad Shalit went far toward achieving that.

Mr. Orenoffered another insight that he says may point Mr. Netanyahutoward military action against Iran.

Although the prime minister failed to make any enduring mark on history during his previous term or so far during his present term, Mr. Netanyahu may see Iran as an opportunity to achieve his Churchillian moment, Mr. Oren wrote. “The day is not far off, Netanyahu believes, when Churchill will emerge from him.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/28/israeli-prisoner-swap-may-be-prelude-attack-iran/ 

 

by

The Religion of Peace Kills 17! NATO Convoy also attacked

Published October 29, 2011

 Associated Press

KABUL,Afghanistan –  A Taliban suicide bomber rammed a vehicle loaded with explosives into an armored NATO bus Saturday on a busy thoroughfare inKabul, killing 17 people, including a dozen Americans, in the deadliest strike against the U.S.-led coalition in the Afghan capital since the war began.

The blast occurred on the same day that a man wearing an Afghan army uniform killed three Australian soldiers and an Afghan interpreter in the south — attacks that show the resiliency of the insurgency and are likely to raise new doubts about the unpopular 10-year-old war and the Western strategy of trying to talk peace with the Taliban.

A spokesman for the fundamentalist Islamic movement, which was ousted in the 2001 invasion for its affiliation with Al Qaeda, claimed responsibility for theKabulattack, saying the bomber had used 1,540 pounds of explosives.

The Taliban and related groups have staged more than a dozen major attacks in Kabul this year, including seven since June, in an apparent campaign to weaken confidence in the Afghan government as it prepares to take over its own security ahead of a 2014 deadline for the U.S. and other NATO countries to withdraw their troops or move them into support roles.

Underscoring the difficulties ahead, the brazen assault occurred just hours after top Afghan and Western officials met in the heart ofKabulto discuss the second phase of shifting security responsibilities to Afghan forces in all or part of 17 of the country’s 34 provinces.

Afghans already have the lead in the Afghan capital.

Heavy black smoke poured from the burning wreckage of an armored personnel carrier, known as a Rhino, inKabulafter the bomber struck. The bus had been sandwiched in the middle of a convoy of mine-resistant military vehicles when it was hit along a four-lane highway often used by foreign military trainers in the southwestern part ofKabul.

The landmarkDarulamanPalace, the bombed-out seat of former Afghan kings, was the backdrop to the chaotic scene: Shrapnel, twisted pieces of metal and charred human remains littered the street.

U.S.soldiers wept as they pulled bodies from the debris, said Noor Ahmad, a witness at the scene. One coalition soldier was choking inside the burned bus, he said.

“The bottom half of his body was burned,” Ahmad said.

NATO said five of its service members and eight civilian contractors working for the coalition died in the attack.

AU.S.defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity to release the information before a formal announcement, said all 13 were Americans. However, Lt. Col. Christian Lemay, a Canadian defense spokesman, told The Associated Press that one Canadian soldier was among the troops killed. The discrepancy could not immediately be reconciled.

It was the deadliest single attack against the U.S.-led coalition across the country since the Taliban shot down a NATO helicopter on Aug. 6 in an eastern Afghan province, killing 30U.S.troops, most elite Navy SEALs, and eight Afghans.

The Afghan Ministry of Interior said four Afghans, including two children, also died in Saturday’s attack. Eight other Afghans, including two children, were wounded, said Kabir Amiri, head ofKabulhospitals.

In all, there were three attacks Saturday against NATO and Afghan forces across the country.

A teenage girl also blew herself up as she tried to attack an Afghan intelligence office in the capital of Kunar province, a hotbed of militancy in northeastAfghanistanalong thePakistanborder, the coalition said. Abdul Sabor Allayar, deputy provincial police chief, said the guards outside the government’s intelligence office in Asad Abad became suspicious and started shooting, at which point the bomber detonated her explosives, killing herself and wounding several intelligence employees.

Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammad Zahir Azimi said officials were investigating whether the man who opened fire on a joint NATO-Afghan base in the restive southern Uruzgan province was an actual soldier or a militant in disguise.

The Australian Broadcasting Corp. said the attack occurred during a morning parade at a forward patrol base in southernKandaharprovince, and the gunman wearing an Afghan army uniform was later killed. The discrepancy in the location of the attack could not immediately be clarified.

InCanberra, the Defense Department said three Australlian soldiers and their Afghan interpreter were killed in the attack, and seven Australian soldiers were wounded.

“It’s a huge loss,” said U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. “Our deepest sympathies go out to their comrades and families, but it will not deter us from our mission. It’s a shock, but we will not let these guys win.”

Just a day earlier, the Pentagon issued a progress report saying that the number of enemy-initiated attacks inAfghanistanwas trending downward. Since May of this year, the monthly number of these attacks has been lower than the same month in 2010, something not seen since 2007, it said.

However, the Pentagon also noted that the insurgency’s safe havens inPakistanand the limited capacity of the Afghan government could jeopardize efforts to turn security gains on the battlefield, primarily in the south, into long-term stability inAfghanistan.

Saturday’s attack broke a relative lull in the Afghan capital, which has experienced a number of attacks in recent years that are often blamed on the Haqqani network, an al-Qaida and Taliban-linked movement that operates out ofPakistan.

The most recent attack inKabulwas the Sept. 20 assassination of former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani by an insurgent who detonated a bomb hidden in his turban. The attacker was posing as a peace emissary coming to meet Rabbani, who was leading a government effort to broker peace with the Taliban.

That occurred about a week after teams of insurgents firing rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons struck at the U.S. Embassy, NATO headquarters and other buildings in the heart ofAfghanistan’s capital, leaving seven Afghans dead.

On Saturday, NATO and Afghan forces sealed off the blast area as fire trucks and ambulances, sirens blaring, rushed in. Coalition troops carried a badly burned body on a stretcher and several black body bags to two NATO helicopters that landed nearby to airlift casualties from the scene.

The Taliban identified the bomber as Abdul Rahman and said he was driving a Toyota Land Cruiser SUV containing 1,540 pounds of explosives and targeting foreigners providing training for Afghan police. The Taliban, who frequently exaggerate casualty claims, said that 25 people were killed by the blast.

A similar attack occurred on the same road in May 2010 when a suicide bomber struck a NATO convoy, killing 18 people. Among the dead were fiveU.S.soldiers and a Canadian colonel.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/29/nato-convoy-attacked-in-afghanistan/#ixzz1cERSGMSX 

 

by

Muslim Complain about Christian symbols at Catholic School

By: Todd Starnes

FOX News & Commentary

TheWashington,D.C.Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations thatCatholicUniversityviolated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.

The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Human Rights told Fox News they had received a 60-page complaint against the private university. The investigation, they said, could take as long a six months.

 

The complaint was filed by John Banzhaf, an attorney and professor at GeorgeWashingtonUniversityLawSchool. Banzhaf has been involved in previous litigation against the school involving the same-sex residence halls. He also alleged in his complaint involving Muslim students that women at the university were being discriminated against. You can read more on those allegations by clicking here.

Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”

“It shouldn’t be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus,” he told Fox News.

A spokesman forCatholicUniversityreleased a statement to Fox News indicating they had not seen any legal filings — but would respond once they do.

“Our faithfulness to our Catholic tradition has also made us a welcome home to students of other religions,” said  Victor Nakas, associate vice president for public affairs. “No students have registered complaints about the exercise of their religions on our campus.”

In a 2010 interview with National Public Radio, university president John Garvey acknowledged that they don’t set aside prayer rooms for Muslim students.

“We make classrooms available, or our chapels are places where they can pray,” he told NPR. “We don’t offer Halal meat, although there are always meals that conform to Halal regulations, that allow students to do what they want.”

Banzhaf said that it is technically not illegal forCatholicUniversityto refuse to provide rooms devoid of religious icons.

 

“It may not be illegal, but it suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice,” he said. “They do have to pray five times a day, they have to look around for empty classrooms and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture of Jesus or a picture of the Pope  is not very conductive to their religion.”

As for the creation of a Muslim student group, Banzhaf said the university has an association of Jewish students – so why not a Muslim group?

“I think they are entitled as a matter of law to be able to form a Muslim student association and to have the same privileges as associations,” he said. “I think that most of them would much prefer to have a place to pray – that they are not surrounded by various Catholic symbols – a place that is more conductive to their religious beliefs than being surrounded by pictures of Popes.”

Garvey, in his 2010 interview with NPR, addressed that issue.

“It’s just not something that we view as an activity that we want to sponsor because we’re a Catholic institution rather than Muslim,” he said.

Patrick Reilly, the president of the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization that promotes Catholic identity among Catholic schools, seemed stunned by the complaint.

“I don’t know what the attorney wants them to do – if he wants them to actually move the Basilica or if the Muslim students can find someplace where they don’t have to look at it,” he told Fox News.

CatholicUniversity, he said, is a Catholic institution.

“One wouldn’t expect a Jewish institution to be responsible for providing liturgical opportunities for other faiths and I wouldn’t expect a Catholic institution to do that,” he said.

“This attorney is really turning civil rights on its head,” he said. “He’s using the law for his own discrimination against the Catholic institution and essentially sayingCatholicUniversitycannot operate according to Catholic principles.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html

by

Border Agent Arrested for mistreating a Drug Dealer (Whatever Happen! To Common Sense)

By Jerry Seper

The Washington Times

 

A U.S. Border Patrol agent has been sentenced to two years in prison for improperly lifting the arms of a 15-year-old drug smuggling suspect while handcuffed — in what the Justice Department called a deprivation of the teenager’s constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force.

Agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr. was named in a November 2009 federal grand jury indictment with deprivation of rights under color of law during an October 2008 arrest near the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas, in response to a report that illegal immigrants had crossed the river with bundles of drugs.

In a prosecution sought by the Mexican government and obtained after the suspected smuggler was given immunity to testify against the agent, Diaz was sentenced last week by U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum in San Antonio. The Mexican consulate inEagle Pass had filed a formal written complaint just hours after the arrest, alleging that the teenager had been beaten.

Defense attorneys argued that there were no injuries or bruises on the suspected smuggler’s lower arms where the handcuffs had been placed nor any bruising resulting from an alleged knee on his back. Photos showed the only marks on his body came from the straps of the pack he carried containing the suspected drugs, they said.

Border Patrol agents found more than 150 pounds of marijuana at the arrest site.

**FILE** An unidentified man in Mexico walks near a footbridge across the Rio Grande connecting the United States and Mexico near Acala, Texas, on Aug. 4, 2010. The bridge is one of two structures at opposite ends of a towering $2.4 billion westTexasstretch of steel border fence designed to block illegal entry. Though the International Boundary and Water Commission owns the bridges, which it calls grade control structures, both are unguarded paths into theUnited StatesfromMexico. (Associated Press)

The defense claimed that the smuggling suspect was handcuffed because he was uncooperative and resisted arrest, and that the agent had lifted his arms to force him to the ground — a near-universal police technique — while the other agents looked for the drugs.

The allegations against Diaz, 31, a seven-year veteran of the Border Patrol, initially were investigated by Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which cleared the agent of any wrongdoing.

But the Internal Affairs Division at U.S. Customs and Border Protection ruled differently nearly a year later and, ultimately, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas brought charges.

The Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council said the government’s case was “based on false testimony that is contradicted by the facts.”

In a statement, the council said that because the arrest took place at about 2 a.m., darkness would have made it impossible for the government’s witnesses to have seen whether any mistreatment took place. It said Marcos Ramos, the Border Patrol agent who stood next to Diaz, testified that he did not see any mistreatment of the smuggling suspect.

The council said other witnesses made contradictory claims and some later admitted to having perjured themselves. Such admissions, the council said, were ignored by the court and the government. It also said that probationary agents who claimed to have witnessed the assault raised no objections during the incident and failed to notify an on-duty supervisor until hours later.

“Instead, they went off-duty to a local ‘Whataburger’ restaurant, got their stories straight and reported it hours later to an off-duty supervisor at his home,” the council said. “Then the ‘witnesses’ went back to the station and reported their allegations.”

The council also noted that the teenager claimed no injuries in court other than sore shoulders, which the council attributed to “the weight of the drug load, approximately 75 pounds, he carried across the border.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas, which brought the charges, is the same office that in February 2006 — under U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton — prosecuted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean after they shot a drug-smuggling suspect, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, in the buttocks as he tried to flee back into Mexico after abandoning a van filled with 800 pounds of marijuana. Aldrete-Davila also was given immunity in the case and testified against the agents.

President George W. Bush commuted the sentences in 2009 after they had served two years.

The same prosecutors also charged Edwards County Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez in 2005 with violating the civil rights of a Mexican criminal alien after he shot out the tires of a van filled with illegals as it tried to run him over. One of the illegal immigrants in the van was hit with bullet fragments.

© Copyright 2011 TheWashingtonTimes,

http://whateverhappentocommonsense.com/

by

Your Tax Dollars buy $70,000 worth of Obama books (Don’t you feel great about this)

This is Just To Easy

The State Department has bought more than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as Christmas gratuities and stocking “key libraries” around the world with “Dreams from My Father” more than a decade after its release.

The U.S. Embassy in Egypt, for instance, spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of Mr. Obama’s best-selling 1995 memoir. Six weeks earlier, the embassy had placed another order for the same book for more than $9,000, federal purchasing records show.

About the same time, halfway around the world, the U.S. Embassy in South Korea had the same idea and spent more than $6,000 for copies of “Dreams from My Father.”

One month later, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, spent more than $3,800 for hardcover copies of the Indonesian version of Mr. Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope,” records show.

A review of the expenditures in a federal database did not reveal any examples of State Department purchases of books by former Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. The purchases of Mr. Obama’s literary work mostly, but not always, took place in the months after Mr. Obama captured the White House.

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, said if the federal government is looking to cut costs, eliminating purchases of Mr. Obama’s books is a good place to start.

“It’s inappropriate forU.S.taxpayer dollars to be spent on this,” she said. “This sounds like propaganda.”

But State Department spokesman Noel Clay said the book purchases followed regular government procurement rules. He said diplomats have long used books as a way to help broker talks on important foreign-policy matters.

“The structure and the presidency of the United Statesis an integral component of representing the United Statesoverseas,” Mr. Clay said. “We often use books to engage key audiences in discussions of foreign policy.”

He also said books are purchased to stock the State Department’s “information resource centers,” which he said are located around the world and provide books aboutU.S. coverage of issues such as culture, history and values.

“We also provide key library collections with books about theUnited States,” he said.

Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, said there could be value in distributing books about American politics and the people who make up political institutions.

“Compared to big-ticket items like embassy construction, buying books may not show up as a huge warning on taxpayers’ radar screens, but there is always room for improvement and making sure programs like this are serving a good, intended purpose,” he said.

There’s no indication the White House knew about the purchases, which overall represent just a fraction of the nearly quarter-million dollars Mr. Obama donated to charities last year and his more than $1.7 million in overall income. Mr. Clay said book orders are normally made directly by embassies based on “their experience and knowledge on the ground of the intended audience.”

The records show a mix of English and foreign language purchases of Mr. Obama’s books.

The U.S. Embassy inIndonesiaspent more than $4,800 in September 2009 for copies of “Dreams from My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope,” though the title of the latter book is spelled “Authority of Hope” in the federal spending database. The embassy spent $3,885 for additional Indonesian copies of “The Audacity of Hope,” records show.

The U.S. Embassy in Turkeyspent more than $3,700 in December 2009 for what purchasing records describe as “Copies of Barack Obama’s book in Turkish.”

In March, the U.S. Embassy in Parisspent more than $8,300 for French language copies of “Dreams from My Father.” The embassy also spent more than $11,600 for French language copies of Mr. Obama’s children’s book, “Of Thee I Sing,” though any royalties he receives for purchases of that children’s book will be donated to charity, according to Mr. Obama’s financial disclosure forms.

Mr. Obama has earned far more writing books than he has earned holding government office. He reported from $1 million to $5 million in royalties in 2010 for “Dreams from My Father,” and between $100,001 and $1 million in royalties for “The Audacity of Hope.”

If he earned 10 percent royalties on roughly $60,000 in purchases of his books by the State Department, excluding the children’s book, he could expect to pocket $6,000. It’s a tiny slice of Mr. Obama’s overall earnings, though still a sizable chunk to most Americans, whose median household income in 2009 was just over $50,000.

According to financial-disclosure forms, Mr. Obama earns royalties of 15 percent of theU.S. price for hardcover sales for “The Audacity of Hope” and 7.5 percent for trade paperback book sales. He reported between $100,001 and $1 million in royalties for “The Audacity of Hope.”

Mr. Obama’s and first lady Michelle Obama’s joint 2010 tax return showed overall income of just under $1.8 million, with more than $240,000 donated to charity. The Obamas reported about $1.5 million from book-related income. Overall, they donated about 14 percent of their income to charity.

Royalties for Mr. Obama’s children’s book, “Of Thee I Sing” are being donated to the Fisher House Foundation for a scholarship fund for children of fallen and disabled soldiers, disclosure forms show.

Mr. Obama also has a deal to write another book after his presidency.

Copyright 2011 TheWashingtonTimes, LLC