The Light: Hillary

Check this out from Bloomberg News on August 30, 2010 (Update: I’ve added a video of the interview at the end.)

Political newcomer Joe Miller, a Tea Party-endorsed Senate candidate [said] that politicians backed by the movement simply want to “restore the constitutional foundation of the country.”

Miller said the Constitution favors his support for privatizing Social Security and phasing out Medicare.

“If one thinks that the Constitution is extreme then you’d also think that the founders are extreme,” he said on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “We just simply want to get back to basics.”

Holy moley. The Dems are not just fightin’ a bunch of feisty, Constitution-quotin’ Tea Partiers. The Dems are also fightin’ the resurgence of the heroes and heroines of Western movies, brought to life with characters like the shotgun-totin’, pretty-as-all-get-out Sarah Palin and her ridin’ partner, the manly oh so manly Joe Miller.

One of those visuals could be enough to trample the Dems. The two visuals together are like the dynamite that blasted mountain after mountain to pave the way West, connecting the West to the rest of the country and bringing electricity and water to every region of the once distant and parched Wild West.

We Americans are desperate to feel potent and powerful again. It’s no wonder we Americans are transfixed by these new rough-and-ready cowboys and cowgirls.

Carly Fiorini is leading Barbara Boxer in most polls. Joe Sestak is now down 10 points in the Pennsylvania Senate race. And Dino Rossi has pulled ahead of Patty Murray in Washington state. (See my footnote below about Rossi/Murray.*)

Congress is going to look, and sound, a whole lot different next year. We may all find ourselves tuning into C-Span to watch those fiery freshmen start to mow down Obama’s health care bill and more. (more...)

Over Immigration policies? Well, if a lot of people currently running for office win, I guess the DOJ will just have to since they all want to implement an Arizona-style immigration law. Yes, fully twenty-two (22) states are looking to incorporate Arizona’s law on their own books, as the report below highlights:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Wow – that is a whole lot of states – maybe Obama can use some of his Obama dollars (aka, Stimulus) to increase the staff at DOJ. He’s gonna have to, if almost half the country enacts legislation to mirror federal law. (Please don’t think about that one too hard – it will just make your head explode.)

And about that whole DOJ lawsuit targeting AZ…Well, I should say, ONE of their lawsuits targeting Arizona, the one directed at Sheriff Arpaio. Oh, yes – the DOJ is handing out these lawsuits in Arizona like they are candy. Not only are they suing the state, but they are suing the Maricopa Community College for – get this – discriminating against would be employees by asking for additional paperwork. And why did they do this? Because the would be employer asked for a Green Card. And the DOJ is filing suit for that? WTH?

Then there is Sheriff Arpaio, who allegedly committed Human Rights violations. Except maybe he didn’t, as this Daily Caller piece by Byron York indicates, “New Evidence Undermines Fed’s Case Against Arizona.” Oh, yeah – this is a doozy:

[snip] Despite the splash of attention from the newest lawsuit, the Justice Department’s investigation of Arpaio could end badly for Holder. When the Department first informed Arpaio that a probe was under way, back in March 2009, it sent a letter saying the investigation would focus on “alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures.” But now we learn that just six months before that, in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio’s office — and gave it a clean bill of health. Arpaio’s lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act.

[...]

The report, crammed with acronyms and bureaucratese, is not light reading. But struggle through it, and the key sentence is this: “The OI and DRO supervisors consider the conduct and performance of the MCSO … officers to be professional and meeting the requirement of the MOA.” Translated, that means officials from the Homeland Security Department’s Office of Investigation (OI), along with officials from the Detention and Removal Operations office (DRO), concluded that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), in its handling of illegal immigrants, acted in a professional manner and complied with a memorandum of agreement (MOA) under which the government gave them the authority to enforce federal law. That agreement included a ban on racial profiling.

[...]

What happens now? It’s been nearly a year and a half since the investigation began, and the Justice Department has not charged the sheriff’s office with violating anyone’s civil rights. Instead, Thursday’s lawsuit goes after Arpaio for allegedly failing to cooperate fully in the probe.

[...]

Failing to find proof of real discrimination in Maricopa County could ultimately doom the administration’s entire crusade in Arizona. The much-publicized suit against the new immigration law is based on the possibility that it might result in future discrimination, but at the same time the department is struggling to find evidence of civil rights violations in Arpaio’s office, which uses enforcement techniques similar to those outlined in the new law. There’s a real chance that in the end Obama’s war on Arizona will come to nothing. (Click HERE to read the full post.)

Honestly, the whole concept of our Department of Justice suing one of our states for enforcing federal Immigration law is so mind boggling, I hardly have words to describe it. Visualize Scooby Doo’s shaking his head, and that’s what I am doing.

Fortunately, a regular at No Quarter, Noogan, summed it up well with this comment:

This is the issue that crystalizes my fear and loathing of this administration. Everything about it stinks to high heaven. It’s unconscionable. The Federal government suing the state of Arizona for passing a law which mirrors Federal law; at the same time allowing ICE and other government arms of the state to ignore Federal law? This is simply outrageous. It’s breathtakingly tyrannical.

It’s stunningly unconstitutional. Along with allowing the President of Mexico to come here, speak before Congress, maligning this country? These acts are the reason for the widely held suspicions about Obama; and no matter how many times liberals and the professional left mock the anger about it, the fact remains: The President of the United States is violating the Constitution, behaving as a dictator. That’s a very good reason to suspect the man.

I simply don’t have words to express my loathing of Eric Holder and Obama….

Thank you, Noogan. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

One thing is crystal clear – Obama and his Department of “Justice” have it in BIG time for Arizona. They are throwing anything they can against the wall hoping SOMETHING sticks to bring Arizona down. So far, though, all they are doing is demonstrating a callous disregard for the laws they are sworn to uphold.

The DOJ and Obama Administration are sure going to have their hands full if half the country follows Arizona’s lead of trying to enforce Federal law.

Wow. I have to stop now, before my head explodes…

I have often thought that staying physically fit is not only a good way to live but also makes enormous economic sense as well. Not that staying fit will keep one’s healthcare premiums totally in check. The simple fact is the cost of healthcare insurance in our country is downright scary. The pace of change in healthcare premiums has been even scarier. How much so? Do you care to make a best guess as to what the average increase in a family’s annual healthcare premium has been over the last decade? 50%? Keep going? 75%? Still too low? 90%? Getting closer, but still not there. The Wall Street Journal gives us this answer and much more in writing, Employers Sharply Raise Workers’ Share of Health Costs:

Overall, annual premiums for families reached an average of $13,770 this year, up 114% since 2000.

Will Obamacare address and mitigate the underlying forces driving this increase? Honestly, I am not optimistic. I view Obamacare as nothing more than another of the redistribution and rationing programs in which those who can pay will absorb the costs for those who can’t. But how are these increases truly being absorbed? To an ever increasing extent, the cost of healthcare is being shifted from the employer to the employees. The WSJ further highlights this reality in writing:

Employers passed health-insurance costs onto employees at a sharply higher rate this year, and businesses’ premiums grew more slowly than they have in a decade, according to an annual survey of companies.

The increased cost-shifting reflected an acceleration of a trend that has been on the rise for years. As companies struggle to cut costs amid difficult economic times, more of them are reducing benefits they offer workers or making workers pay more for them. Still, companies are paying nearly three-quarters of workers’ health-care premiums.

Employees paid an average of about $4,000 toward their family coverage this year, up 14% from last year, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. But total insurance premiums paid by the employer and the employee rose just 3% for a family plan—the slowest rate of growth in 10 years, according to the data.

The nonprofit research groups surveyed about 2,000 large and small companies between January and May.

“It’s the first time I can remember when employers have coped with costs by shifting it all to workers,” said Drew Altman, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s president and chief executive.

The survey showed workers with family plans are now paying 30% of their premiums, compared with 27% last year and 26% five years ago.

Businesses explained the shift by pointing to stark choices between cutting staff and reducing benefits.

“It’s no surprise, since businesses are struggling to keep their doors open,” said James Gelfand, director of health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “The premium increase may have been modest but it’s still a premium increase and businesses can’t absorb those costs.”

As the increased costs are shifted to employees, what is the knock on economic impact? There is no doubt that discretionary consumer spending will suffer a further drag. That reality is nothing more than Principles of Economics 101.

Larry Doyle

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. As President of Greenwich Investment Management, an SEC regulated privately held registered investment adviser, I am merely a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

Esteemed Director of the UVA Center for Politics, Larry Sabato, is making some major predictions for the upcoming elections. Now, many of us are pretty sure how things are going to go, but Sabato is using some pretty good numbers to make his predictions sixty days out. Oh, yes, Republicans will take some seats, but wait until you see what Sabato predicts:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Earlier today, Stuart Varney said this prediction will stabilize the stock market and help the economy. Why? Because if companies think the Republicans are going to take over control, they don’t have to worry about other big spending bills.

Sabato mentioned his site, the Center for Politics, and his article, “Sixty Days To Go.” Here is a snippet from his report:

[snip] We’ve been patient and cautious here at the Crystal Ball as a year’s worth of facts has accumulated. We’ve sifted the polls, cranked up the models, and watched the candidates and campaigns closely. All political observers have “gut feelings” about an election year, but feelings make for good songs and lousy predictions. Forecasting is an imprecise art. People who get too far ahead of the facts or are too insistent about what will happen are usually partisans—openly or in disguise.

The Crystal Ball’s predictions are clinical. We are fond of people in both parties. We cheer for no one.

2010 was always going to be a Republican year, in the midterm tradition. It has simply been a question of degree. Several scenarios were possible, depending in large measure on whether, or how quickly, the deeply troubled American economy recovered from the Great Recession. Had Democratic hopes on economic revitalization materialized, it is easy to see how the party could have used its superior financial resources, combined with the tendency of Republicans in some districts and states to nominate ideological fringe candidates, to keep losses to the low 30s in the House and a handful in the Senate. [snip]

I encourage you to read the rest here.

A stable economy – well, that is certainly something we have not seen of late. I guess time will tell, right?

Consider this an Open thread.

And given that, if I may take a moment of personal privilege, two things: 1. Earl is not coming near us, but Gaston might; and 2. as I mentioned in a comment recently, I will be having a total knee replacement (right knee) on September 9th. Some of you may recall I had a partial replacement 1 3/4 years ago on my left knee (and that one will be replaced in February – the partial didn’t help). My orthopedist informed me that as hard as my rehab was for the partial, it is MUCH harder for the total. That is all to say, I will be out of commission for a good bit. I am guessing at least a month. Bad timing for blogging the upcoming political season, but I cannot wait any more. Thanks for the support, and the understanding.

And Gaston? Well, my partner might be making a trip back down here to help our friend who is house/pet-sitting batten down the hatches. Like with the economy, we will wait and see.

Reprinted from Truthout.org with the express permission of of Larry’s longtime friend Mel Goodman, whose biography is at the end of this post.

_______________________________________________

The "double envelopment" or pincer movement is a classic military maneuver that finds the flanks of the opponent under simultaneous attack from the opposing forces. The maneuver may have been used as early as the Battle of Marathon in the fifth century BC, and there are accounts of Hannibal using the double envelopment at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Gen. Robert E. Lee used the technique successfully in the Second Battle of Bull Run in 1862, when the Confederate forces threatened the lines of communication between the Union forces and the political leadership in Washington. The German Sixth Army was a victim of double envelopment at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, and Gen. George Patton used the technique successfully against German forces in World War II.

Now, President Barack Obama finds himself the victim of a political double envelopment in which the Pentagon, having ostensibly agreed to a strategy calling for discussion of withdrawal from Afghanistan, is already campaigning and planning for an extended stay. On one flank, the Pentagon is undertaking a huge base expansion program that will support a regional military strategy against Russia, China and Iran. On the other flank, the senior military leadership is walking away from any notion of even gradual withdrawal beginning in 2011.

President Obama seemed reluctant last year when he announced his decision to enlarge the US military presence in Afghanistan. He demonstrated his uncertainty by combining the decision to send an additional 30,000 soldiers and Marines with a commitment to begin discussions for withdrawal in December of this year in order to begin a withdrawal process in July 2011. Vice President Joe Biden strongly opposed the decision to expand the force presence, but he was outflanked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who received predictably strong support from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and senior general officers.

Now, one general after another is walking away from any discussion of a major review of policy, let alone withdrawal, with on-the-record comments in support of an extended stay in Afghanistan. The Pentagon’s campaign began two weeks with Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, arguing that he had not come to Afghanistan to preside over a "graceful exit." General Petraeus indicated that his support for any decision to begin the withdrawal of forces next summer would depend on how the war was proceeding. He presumably believes that he can repeat the success of the surge in Iraq, which he campaigned for in 2007.

In the wake of General Petraeus’ remarks, Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said that President Obama’s July 2011 deadline to begin US troop withdrawal was "giving our enemy sustenance." General Conway seemed to be particularly dismissive of any discussion of withdrawal, noting that President Obama was "talking to several audiences at the same time when he made his comments regarding July 2011." The US commander in charge of training Afghan security forces, Gen. William Caldwell IV, told Pentagon reporters on August 23 that he will not complete his mission of training an Afghan force until after the deadline. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen has been the most aggressive military leader in making the case for a long-term commitment to Afghanistan. And General McChrystal probably should have been fired for insubordination in the fall of 2009 when he rejected the idea of using drone aircraft and special forces to defeat al-Qaeda before a final decision had been made.

Get Truthout in your inbox every day! Click here to sign up for free updates.

This is very much different from the private comments of the military leadership to President Obama last year when he conducted his high-level review of Afghan policy. In the Oval Office in October 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen pledged their support to President Obama’s plan and committed themselves to making sure that Generals McChrystal and Petraeus would stop their public discussion of the policy debate. Vice Chairman of the JCS, Gen. James Cartwright, also pledged fealty. And in late November, only days before the West Point speech, President Obama asked General Petraeus if he was certain of progress over the next 18 months that would allow the withdrawal to begin in 2011. Gates, Mullen and Petraeus agreed that it could be done and that the Afghan Army could take over the mission at that time.

The pace of US military construction in Afghanistan certainly does not suggest an interest or expectation of an early withdrawal. Major expansion is taking place at three US air bases in southern and northern Afghanistan and none of these projects is expected to be completed before the latter part of 2011. In other words, long after President Obama has pledged to begin the withdrawal of US forces, the Pentagon is allocating hundreds of millions of dollars for air bases in key regions. The House of Representatives has already approved more than $1 billion for additional base construction in addition to the more than $5 billion allocated to build facilities for the Afghan Army and the national police. Neither Afghan institution has demonstrated that it can maintain security in the country, let alone take on the growing Taliban forces.

President Obama has learned some harsh lessons about civilian-military relations over the past year. The secretary of defense and the Pentagon’s military leadership are working energetically to undermine the president’s call for an end to the cynical policy of "don’t ask, don’t tell," which undermined the role of gays serving in the military. When the Obama administration was discussing Afghan policy at the highest levels last year, senior general officers campaigned for a significant expansion of US forces long before any decision was actually made. General McChrystal was eventually forced to resign as commander of US forces in Afghanistan because he and his staff were contemptuous toward civilian decision makers.

The president denied that he was "jammed" by the military in the fall of 2009 when the toughest decision of his presidency had to be made. It is clear, however, that the military is trying to manipulate President Obama on the next round of decision making. It was 50 years ago that President Dwight D. Eisenhower told his senior advisers, "God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn’t know the military as well as I do."

________________________________________________________________________

Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, spent 42 years with the CIA, the National War College, and the U.S. Army. His latest book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.

NOTE FROM LARRY: Mel is an old friend and was a preeminent analyst at the CIA. I may not always agree with him but he is a thoughtful, considerate person. You don’t have to agree with him either but I encourage you to address your differences with him on substantive grounds. It is in this kind of give and take that we learn.

God, how I hate the news media. They would hype the shit out of a fart released at a Taco stand. They currently are in full blown wailing over the impending doom bearing down on the Eastern seaboard of the United States that goes by the name of EARL. You know, Earl the Hurricane.

While I am aging (gracefully I might add) I have not succumbed to Alzheimer’s disease and can actually remember bold predictions made by the weather forecasters. Here’s what they said about our current hurricane season before it started:

The 2010 Hurricane Season in the Atlantic Ocean began on June 1, 2010, and will end on November 30, 2010. Atlantic hurricanes affect the eastern and Gulf coasts of the U.S. and the Caribbean nations. Those with interests in hurricane-prone areas must heed federal and state advice on preparedness, the season in general, and each specific storm in the season.

The experts are predicting a busier-than-usual hurricane season for 2010.7 The early forecasts are being modified as the season progresses but the climactic conditions indicate the 2010 hurricane season will stand in sharp contrast to the relatively mild 2009 season. Special concerns in 2010 are whether a hurricane will hit the already-devastated island of Haiti and how a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico would affect the giant oil slick created by the explosion on the BP offshore driling platform. 8 Another question is whether a hurricane will come ashore in the Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama coastal areas, some of which have not yet recovered from 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

Busier than usual huh?

The media cluelessness was on full display last weekend as they commemorated the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina. Remember Katrina? The slammed into New Orleans way back in 2005 at the end of August. In 2005 we had 11 major storms before September.

So here we are in 2010 and September has begun. How’s your math? If you understand the naming convention for hurricanes then you realize that Hurricane Earl marks only the fifth storm. 50% less than what we experienced in 2005. But is the media reporting that? Hell no. Everything has to be a fucking crisis. We need to be pelted with blaring warnings of breaking news. If they are not scaring the shit out of you they are not doing their job.

I suppose I would not be so angry about this if they confined their mindless fear mongering to hurricanes and snow storms. But they don’t. It is their standard operating procedure. Dire warnings devoid of context.

Here’s a prediction–for as long as you live there will be hurricanes. Some will be bad. Some years we will have more than others. Some years fewer. It is called weather. Accept it and get on with life.

Oh, and one more thing. If you choose to live on the sea coast in an area that is below sea level, you are a moron if you are surprised when a hurricane hits and you get flooded. You may have an inalienable right to drown yourself and your family but don’t expect me to pay for it or to give a shit.

UPDATE: Here’s what happened in 2009:

On September 1, the season’s fifth named storm, Tropical Storm Erika, formed east of the Lesser Antilles. Upon forming, the storm had attained its peak intensity with winds of 50 mph (85 km/h). Persistent wind shear prevented the system from intensifying and resulted in the storm’s convection being completely displaced from the center of circulation by the time it passed over Guadeloupe on September 2. After entering the Caribbean Sea, Erika briefly regained strength before fully succumbing to strong shear. The system eventually dissipated on September 4 south of Puerto Rico.[24]

Several days after Erika dissipated,[24] a new tropical depression formed southeast of the Cape Verde Islands on September 7. This depression rapidly intensified within an environment of low wind shear and high sea surface temperatures. Receiving the name Fred on September 8, the storm quickly developed an eye feature and was upgraded to a hurricane roughly 24 hours after being named. Within a 12 hour span, the storm’s winds increased by 40 mph (65 km/h) to its peak of 120 mph (195 km/h). Upon reaching this intensity, Fred became the strongest storm on record south of 30°N and east of 35°W in the Atlantic basin. Not long after the intensification ceased, it began to weaken as dry air became entrained within the system. By September 11, the storm nearly stalled northeast of the Cape Verde Islands and weakened to a tropical storm. The following day, Fred degenerated into a remnant low before taking a westward track across the Atlantic. The remnants of Fred persisted for nearly a week, nearly regenerating into a tropical depression several times. The low eventually dissipated on September 19 south of Bermuda.[25]

In late September, a new, well-defined tropical wave moved off the west coast of Africa into the Atlantic Ocean. By September 25, the system had developed sufficient deep convection for the NHC to classify it as Tropical Depression Eight. Shortly thereafter, wind shear and decreasing sea surface temperatures caused the depression to weaken. The system degenerated into a remnant low on September 26 before degenerating into a trough of low pressure.[26]

Just to reiterate the key point–this year’s hurricane season is very similar to last year’s, which was considered relatively mild. Note that the 2010 hurricane named Earl formed about the same time that the 2009 hurricane, Erika, appeared. Unlike 2005, when we had 11 named hurricanes before the end of August, we have only had five this year (with six, Fiona, on the way).

An Open Thread to discuss the topics of the day, like the additional lawsuit by Obama’s Administration against Arizona. Or how about Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf claiming that the discussion about his Mall-Mosque near Ground Zero:

[snip] “has expanded beyond a piece of real estate and expanded to Islam in America and what it means for America,” [snip]. (Click here to read the rest.)

Freakin’ spare me. What a crock. He wanted it there for a specific reason, and he damn well knows it. Now he is going to try and pull this crap?

Oh, and one last thing to celebrate school starting again, for both the students and the teachers in the crowd (h/t to Linda):

In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don’t Give A Shit?

Ahem. Or anything else y’all want to talk about tonight. Have at it, friends!

Editor’s Note: John Huey, a security professional involved with aviation security issues for over 28 years, has published several articles for NoQuarter. Learn more about John Huey below this post.

_________________________________________________

Every year, as we approach the anniversary of that dreadful day in September of 2001, US and European Aviation, as well as other Western target sites, intuitively go to a higher state of situational awareness given the remembered events.

When Ahmed al-Soofi, a legal US resident Yemini national, presented himself for TSA security screening in Birmingham, Alabama last Sunday the security process should have produced an immediate, on the spot, alert requiring positive vetting of al-Soofi’s identity, intent and associations prior to his being allowed to go forward by air to his ultimate destination of Sana, Yemen.

The reason that Mr. al-Soofi should have been delayed in Birmingham (once I got a look at the images of the items found in his bags) is that it is very clear that a number of elements that have been used in conjunction with explosives in the past (cell phones, watches, liquid containers) were in proximity to one another, and bound in a way, that VERY closely resembled the shape and form of actual improvised devices that have been in the al-Qaeda playbook. The fact that they LOOKED like IED’s without actually being explosive raises a whole other set of questions.

Any reasonably well trained supervisor standing at that checkpoint should have seen and been aware of the following:

1. A checked bag containing items that were configured in the shape and using some of the elements of an Improvised Explosive Device.
2. A traveler on his way to Yemen which has been a recent staging ground for an actual explosive attack (Christmas Day, 2009) that used a routing to the US through Amsterdam which was also on al-Soofi’s itinerary.
3. The stated intention of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen, to use legal US residents and other US nationals to further their aims.
4. The recent designation by the CIA of al-Qaeda in Yemen as the single biggest threat and staging area for terrorism directed at the US.

Under these circumstances the fact that al-Soofi was sent on his way from the point of origin without further investigation is profoundly disturbing.

It wasn’t until a change in itinerary (reportedly initiated by the Airline due to a missed flight) resulting in a mis-routing of the suspect bag to Washington, the arrival on the Passenger Name Record of the Chicago-Amsterdam flight of another Yemeni with a last minute itinerary change, the pulling of the un-accompanied bag from al-Soofi’s original Washington-Dubai flight (a whole other issue) and the very belated connection of some fairly obvious dots that the alarm bells started (loudly and internationally) ringing.

As we can see from the list of risk indicators above none of the questions that should have been asked about Mr. al-Soofi were related to race or religion in any way and were operational questions related to actual terrorist threat. It’s clearly obvious that those questions should have been asked in Birmingham, Alabama, NOT the lock up in Amsterdam.

TSA screening personnel are not trained Law Enforcement Officer level counter terrorism investigators but they need to have enough training and common sense (along with an awareness of the nature and origin of the threat) to pick up the phone and ask for help.

If an expert FBI investigator from the local Birmingham field office had been brought into the picture here in the US it is quite likely that the worst outcome for al-Soofi would have been a travel delay of one day. The other gentleman involved, Mr. al-Murisi, would quite likely have never seen the inside of a cell at all.

If we could reach Mr. al-Soofi in Amsterdam today (he just was let out of the Dutch lock up this morning, Wednesday, September 1) I think he would probably agree that if some fairly simple proper questioning had been done in Alabama that this whole incident would have been more of a footnote in his life rather than the highlight it will now be.

Email: jhuey92@yahoo.com

_________________________________________________

John Huey’s constructive critiques first were published at NoQuarterUSA.net on January 5, 2010 in “From An Insider: The Need for Risk-Analysis, High-Threat Screening Lanes & Checkpoints” and in several subsequent posts. Among John’s most recent posts were “How Error Metastasizes: Europeans Take a Page Out of Our Playbook at the Checkpoint” and “Of Car Bombs and Consequences.”

To say I was shocked to learn that the State Department included Arizona in its section on Immigration in the paper the State Department presented to the Human Rights Commission. Surely, I misheard this. No way would the State Department include one of its own states on such a list to the United Nations. I did not mishear anything, or misread anything. Sadly, yes, the State Department did.

Let’s be clear here: Arizona is now on the list for trying to uphold Federal Immigration Law, and for making it a law that people who have been stopped for violations can be asked for their papers.

What shocks me even more was Secretary Clinton’s willingness to put Arizona in this category. Yes, she thought it would be a “model,” according to this Fox News report:

[snip] Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included the dispute in the report because she thought the U.S. could serve as “a model” to other nations.

“The universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate, you know, to other countries, even other countries on the Human Rights Council, this is how you engage civil society,’ Crowley told reporters. [enip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

A “model”? We have girls and their teachers being gassed in Afghanistan. Women in Iran being stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery. Hundreds of women being raped in Congo. And our State Department puts ARIZONA on a Human Rights list?

As if I didn’t already have a headache from my root canal.

Oh, and speaking of Iran, I trust you recall that Iran – IRAN – is on the U.N. Commission on Women’s Rights. WTH???

Do I even need to tell you how upset Governor Jan Brewer is about being included on this list? Yes, she called it “offensive,” and has fired off a letter to Secretary Clinton. The State Department, though, is standing by its list, as PJ Crowley states below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

How is it that PJ Crowley is the spokesman for the State Department? Good grief.

Well, for my money, I’d rather have Martha MacCullum any day of the week. At least she is someone who thinks the US should be held to a higher standard than countries which engage in such horrific human rights abuses as detailed above and by MacCullum, herself. As she said, we SHOULD be held to a higher standard than these countries, and I couldn’t agree more. Do we really want to be in the same category regarding Human Rights as Iran, Afghanistan, Congo, and similar countries? Hell to the NO, and why the State Department Spokesperson doesn’t get that is troubling indeed.

Bottom line, though, Arizona fits nowhere in that list the State Department presented to the United Nations. This is a States Right v. Federal Right. Perhaps Gov. Brewer should turn the tables on the State Department, and the DOJ. Their refusal to abide by their Constitutional Duty to protect the borders and uphold federal laws are creating human rights abuses for people living in Arizona. How about that, huh? Yeah. I’m sure AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu would be more than willing to testify to that effect as he essentially does below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

That Secretary Clinton saw fit to put this into a report to the UN is disturbing. She needs to rectify this now, and apologize to both Arizona, and the country, for even considering what Arizona is trying to accomplish as a “human rights abuse.” That is absurd, and I cannot believe she went along with this wrongheaded move.

As someone who supported Hillary Clinton 1000%, I am disappointed in her, to say the least. And this? Well, I’m waiting for that apology, Secretary Clinton.

UPDATE: I had a comment at my blog about not providing a link to the actual report, and what the report said (though I think PJ Crowley DID state what was said about Arizona. So, in the interest of full disclosure, here is the LINK to the report, and here is where AZ came into the discussion:

94. Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.

95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.

Make of this what you will, but I stand by my post – I think it was irresponsible at BEST to include Arizona and the government’s case against AZ, in a report to the UN on Human Rights in this manner (making it clear that the Federal Gov’t has taken AZ to court, and all of the implications therein). I might add, I think #94 takes the wind out of the Fed’s sails in regard to suing AZ, don’t you? Could just be me, though.

I changed the title to better reflect how AZ was mentioned in the report. I apologize for not being clearer before, but honestly, it was only my raging headache that prevented me from making the point succinctly. Sorry for that, though.

Anyway, there is the link – read it for yourself, and decide.