Politics: Why the Democrats will lose the House in 2010 [12/31/09] "The trend is not the Democrats’ friend. At least not in 2010. The party of the sitting president almost always suffers losses in midterm congressional elections. To that time-tested dynamic now add voter angst about high unemployment, big deficits and controversial legislation. Expect Senate majority leader Harry Reid to lose his effective 60-seat supermajority and Nancy Pelosi to hand the House back to the Republicans. Here’s why 2010 is looking like 1994 all over again: ..."
Note: What if they really weren't paranoid, but working with them, and this is a diversionary story? You decide.
VIDEO [2:14]
aimed at reducing escalating violence in arrests and general public interactions. The department has been under fire for a number of alleged abuses of force. Patrol officers in the experiment will be turning on the cameras every time they talk with anyone. The cameras look a lot like bluetooth earpieces, and are attached via headband. A mini computer rides on the officer’s belt. Every shift will end with a data download. Arizona-based, publicly traded, Taser International is footing the initial cost for the experiment. The gear rings up at $1,700 per cop, plus a $99 per monthly fee per officer. That’s a heavy outlay if every officer has the equipment, but lawsuit payouts for wrongful death, incarceration or injury aren’t cheap either. “The AXON project is unfortunately a positive thing right now because the level of distrust is so high,” said Raj Jayadev, head of a San Jose community organization. San Jose and the surrounding Santa Clara valley is a melting pot of Asian (especially Vietnamese), Latino, and Asian Indian populations, sustained by the odd economic mix of high tech and agribusiness. Activists point to Department of Justice statistics which show that, for example, in a city where Latinos account for roughly 30 percent of the population, they represented 57 percent of the public intoxication arrests in 2007. Charges of resisting arrest are also very high in the city. The so-called “Bobbie Cam” has been in selective use in the United Kingdom since 2007, where it is claimed that violent crime has been reduced by 8 per cent, and incidents of excessive officer force are at zero. They are particularly used in answering domestic violence calls. The American Civil Liberties Union has come out strongly against police cameras, seeing them as a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, but courts have held that citizens have little expectation of privacy in public spaces. Disclosure that a citizen is being recorded is required of all body camera-wearing officers. ..."
VIDEO [11:36]
"The Reverend Fred Phelps hates 'fags' (not to mention Jews), and Lady
Gaga loves everything gay. So somehow by the transitive property, it makes sense that the Kansas pastor would declare that God hates Gaga. Here's the Reverend's press release with info on where you can join him and the Wesboro Baptist Church to picket Gaga's concert on January 7: ... "Thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed...Will He reserve His anger forever? Will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest." Jer 3:3,5" ..... Art" and "fashion" are the euphemisms, the guise under which proud whore Lady Gaga teaches rebellion against God (incidentally, her claim to the title of "lady" is sound only if she tacks on "of the night," thereby alluding to another euphemism of what she is.) As much as she'd like to pretend otherwise, there's nothing new or different about this particular hussy's pretentious prancing. Does the simple slut truly think that she can change God's standards by seducing a generation of rebels into joining her in fist-raised, stiff-necked, hard-hearted rebellion against Him? Get real! Even as she gives lip-service to "liberating" her young fans, Lady Gaga brings them into slavery to their own corruption, teaching them to glory in their shame. She hates you! "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness...While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption!" 2 Pet. 2:18-19"
in a bunch, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the sweeping overhaul should it make its way to President Obama's desk. Republicans have agreed to allow the Democratic-led Senate to move up the time for a final vote to 8 a.m. Thursday so that lawmakers and their staff can go home for Christmas. But GOP supporters aren't backing down on their threats to put a stop to the legislation using whatever legal means possible. Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill. On the first issue, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday renewed the call to examine the constitutionality of whether the federal government can require Americans to purchase a product. I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Ensign said in a statement, raising what's known as a "constitutional point of order." Such procedural challenges are rare and typically lead to a vote. The non-profit Fund for Personal Liberty, as well as a Virginia-based group called the 10th Amendment Foundation, already have threatened to file suit in federal court over this issue if the health care bill passes. The Constitution allows Congress to tax, borrow, spend, declare war, raise an army and regulate commerce, among other things. Proponents of the insurance mandate point to the Commerce Clause in arguing that Congress is within its rights to require health insurance and dismiss such potential legal challenges. But foes say the across-the-board requirement is too broad. "I personally do not believe the Congress has the authority to enact an individual mandate requiring a person to purchase a product from a private seller," said Kent Masterson Brown, lead counsel with The Fund for Personal Liberty. "I don't think the power is there. This is not regulating anything." He said his group would be joined by the Washington Legal Foundation in filing suit against the health care bill. "This thing may be stillborn, even if it passes," he said. Even though Obama argues that the mandate is similar to laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance, opponents cite several key differences. First, the auto insurance mandate is avoidable, since anyone who doesn't want to pay doesn't have to drive. Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover damages to other people and cars -- not themselves. Third, auto insurance regulation occurs at the state level. When the Congressional Budget Office considered the idea of a health insurance mandate back in 1994 under the Clinton administration, it concluded that the mandate would be "an unprecedented form of federal action." The only congressional mandate close to that was the draft, the CBO concluded. Ensign cited that finding in his complaint. ..."
;){kind=link}