Currently viewing the tag: “Executive”

As the Republican led House, and many Republicans, and some Democrats, in the Senate look to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, Mr. Obama has quietly implemented his own rules

On March 4th, in a move surely designed to side-step Congress, Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality issued instructions to all federal agencies on how to adapt to climate change. All agencies, from the Food and Drug Administration to the Department of Defense, will be required to analyze their vulnerabilities to the impacts from climate change and come up with a plan to adapt. Thousands of governmental employees will be trained on climate science, like it or not.

The changes aren’t limited to just federal agencies. Countless numbers of private businesses that sell, build, provide logistics or maintenance, or anything else to the government will be forced to comply with new Federal climate adaptation guidelines—all because of Presidential Executive Order 13514.

Got that? Any company that has dealings with the Federal government will have to implement all the requirements of EO 13514, which include things like

  • Appoint a Climate Adaptation specialist
  • Establish an Agency wide Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Mandate by June 2011
  • Participate in Climate Adaptation workshops and then educate all employees throughout 2011
  • Identify and analyze climate vulnerabilities that would interfere with accomplishing the Agency’s mission by March 2012
  • Implement the adaptation plan by September 2012

No wonder Obama has avoided most talk about “climate change”: he’s stealthily implemented the Warmist idiocy.

Say, I wonder if this would apply to anyone paying taxes?

It also “requires Federal Agencies to set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target within 90 days; increase energy efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies.”

So, the power of the federal government will be used to push one product over another. So much for a fair and impartial government.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Stop The ACLU

Tagged with:
 

The latest installment of New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s Sunday Magazine column, “Among the Guerrillas — What role do the mainstream media play in an environment beset by Assanges and O’Keefes?” likened conservative guerrilla film-maker James O’Keefe, who brought down ACORN and the executive suite at National Public Radio with his hoaxes, to Julian Assange, the anti-American anarchist who spilled secret diplomatic cables with the intent of harming U.S. interests.

Intriguingly, Keller went further than he usually does to meet his critics, confessing that his paper could be rightfully accused of a liberal outlook in a cultural sense, though he managed to make this particular brand of urban cultural liberalism sound appealing: “[Former Public Editor Daniel] Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan….Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered.”

Keller’s journalistic sympathy lies with Assange, one formerly evinced by the Times’s participation in the last and most potent batch of diplomatic leaks from Assange’s WikiLeaks project. (The Times was not nearly as approving of O’Keefe’s hoaxes, which were aimed at liberals.)

Has anyone actually seen James O’Keefe and Julian Assange together? Are we quite sure that the right-wing prankster who brought down the leadership of National Public Radio and the anarchic leaker aren’t split personalities of the same guy — sent by fate to mess with the heads of mainstream journalists?

Sure, one shoots from the left, the other from the right. One deals in genuine (albeit purloined) secrets; the other in “Candid Camera” stunts, most recently posing as a potential donor and entrapping a foolish NPR executive into disclosing his scorn for Republicans and the Tea Party. Assange aims to enlist the media; O’Keefe aims to discredit us. But each, in his own guerrilla way, has sown his share of public doubt about whether the press can be trusted as an impartial bearer of news.

Keller does admit to some liberal lean on the part of his paper, although he chalks it up to the cultural factor of being a Manhattan-based newspaper:

Back in 2004, Daniel Okrent, the first ombudsman at The Times, wrote a column under the headline, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” The sly first sentence of his essay was: “Of course it is.” Nobody seems to remember what came after. Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan. We publish news of gay unions on the wedding pages. We have a science section that does not feel obliged to give equal time to creationists when it writes about evolution. Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered. Respect is a prerequisite for understanding. But he did not mean that we subscribe to any political doctrine or are foot soldiers in any cause. (Anyone who thinks we go easy on liberals should ask Eliot Spitzer or David Paterson or Charles Rangel or….)

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with:
 

The latest installment of New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s Sunday Magazine column, “Among the Guerrillas — What role do the mainstream media play in an environment beset by Assanges and O’Keefes?” likened conservative guerrilla film-maker James O’Keefe, who brought down ACORN and the executive suite at National Public Radio with his hoaxes, to Julian Assange, the anti-American anarchist who spilled secret diplomatic cables with the intent of harming U.S. interests.

Intriguingly, Keller went further than he usually does to meet his critics, confessing that his paper could be rightfully accused of a liberal outlook in a cultural sense, though he managed to make this particular brand of urban cultural liberalism sound appealing: “[Former Public Editor Daniel] Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan….Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered.”

Keller’s journalistic sympathy lies with Assange, one formerly evinced by the Times’s participation in the last and most potent batch of diplomatic leaks from Assange’s WikiLeaks project. (The Times was not nearly as approving of O’Keefe’s hoaxes, which were aimed at liberals.)

Has anyone actually seen James O’Keefe and Julian Assange together? Are we quite sure that the right-wing prankster who brought down the leadership of National Public Radio and the anarchic leaker aren’t split personalities of the same guy — sent by fate to mess with the heads of mainstream journalists?

Sure, one shoots from the left, the other from the right. One deals in genuine (albeit purloined) secrets; the other in “Candid Camera” stunts, most recently posing as a potential donor and entrapping a foolish NPR executive into disclosing his scorn for Republicans and the Tea Party. Assange aims to enlist the media; O’Keefe aims to discredit us. But each, in his own guerrilla way, has sown his share of public doubt about whether the press can be trusted as an impartial bearer of news.

Keller does admit to some liberal lean on the part of his paper, although he chalks it up to the cultural factor of being a Manhattan-based newspaper:

Back in 2004, Daniel Okrent, the first ombudsman at The Times, wrote a column under the headline, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” The sly first sentence of his essay was: “Of course it is.” Nobody seems to remember what came after. Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan. We publish news of gay unions on the wedding pages. We have a science section that does not feel obliged to give equal time to creationists when it writes about evolution. Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered. Respect is a prerequisite for understanding. But he did not mean that we subscribe to any political doctrine or are foot soldiers in any cause. (Anyone who thinks we go easy on liberals should ask Eliot Spitzer or David Paterson or Charles Rangel or….)

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with:
 

The latest installment of New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s Sunday Magazine column, “Among the Guerrillas — What role do the mainstream media play in an environment beset by Assanges and O’Keefes?” likened conservative guerrilla film-maker James O’Keefe, who brought down ACORN and the executive suite at National Public Radio with his hoaxes, to Julian Assange, the anti-American anarchist who spilled secret diplomatic cables with the intent of harming U.S. interests.

Intriguingly, Keller went further than he usually does to meet his critics, confessing that his paper could be rightfully accused of a liberal outlook in a cultural sense, though he managed to make this particular brand of urban cultural liberalism sound appealing: “[Former Public Editor Daniel] Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan….Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered.”

Keller’s journalistic sympathy lies with Assange, one formerly evinced by the Times’s participation in the last and most potent batch of diplomatic leaks from Assange’s WikiLeaks project. (The Times was not nearly as approving of O’Keefe’s hoaxes, which were aimed at liberals.)

Has anyone actually seen James O’Keefe and Julian Assange together? Are we quite sure that the right-wing prankster who brought down the leadership of National Public Radio and the anarchic leaker aren’t split personalities of the same guy — sent by fate to mess with the heads of mainstream journalists?

Sure, one shoots from the left, the other from the right. One deals in genuine (albeit purloined) secrets; the other in “Candid Camera” stunts, most recently posing as a potential donor and entrapping a foolish NPR executive into disclosing his scorn for Republicans and the Tea Party. Assange aims to enlist the media; O’Keefe aims to discredit us. But each, in his own guerrilla way, has sown his share of public doubt about whether the press can be trusted as an impartial bearer of news.

Keller does admit to some liberal lean on the part of his paper, although he chalks it up to the cultural factor of being a Manhattan-based newspaper:

Back in 2004, Daniel Okrent, the first ombudsman at The Times, wrote a column under the headline, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” The sly first sentence of his essay was: “Of course it is.” Nobody seems to remember what came after. Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan. We publish news of gay unions on the wedding pages. We have a science section that does not feel obliged to give equal time to creationists when it writes about evolution. Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered. Respect is a prerequisite for understanding. But he did not mean that we subscribe to any political doctrine or are foot soldiers in any cause. (Anyone who thinks we go easy on liberals should ask Eliot Spitzer or David Paterson or Charles Rangel or….)

NewsBusters.org blogs

Tagged with:
 

Studio-based series to premiere on The…
B&C – Breaking News

Tagged with:
 

Di Loreto will discuss show’s popularity with HRTS…
B&C – Breaking News

Tagged with:
 

Likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA) wasted no time denouncing the Affordable Care Act today, the one year anniversary of its signing. The former Massachusetts governor — who signed and still supports a state-based plan that requires individuals to purchase coverage — wrote in the National Review this morning that if elected president, he would work to do-away with the entire law:

If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.”

Romney’s proposed action is bold, but it’s also impractical. The executive branch and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) don’t have the authority to grant such broad waivers. According to the law, HHS (together with the IRS) have waiver authority, but only if the states meet very specific requirements. Neither have blanket waiver authority, which would have to come from Congress.

The law does offer states a great deal of flexibility, however, allowing governors to implement the health insurance exchanges themselves or letting “the federal government to do so.” “States may establish their own risk adjustment programs, preexisting condition high risk pools, and excessive premium increase review programs” and receive block grants to construct a “basic health program” that would serve a segment of the Medicaid-eligible population. States can also enter into interstate compacts for the sale of health insurance across state lines and by 2017, the federal government may grant waivers for key provisions and provide states with block grants to develop “their own innovative proposals for reforming health care” (so long as the state provides comprehensive and cost-effective coverage).

Wonk Room

Tagged with:
 

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Melissa Clouthier to discuss the 2012 GOP dream candidate and determine if it’s time for the American people to elect an executive for President.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Republicans: Go Boldly
Governor Tim Pawlenty Presents His Case
Coffee & Markets: For 2012, is Boring the New Awesome?

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Melissa on Twitter


Big Government

Tagged with:
 

(Eugene Volokh)

I’m delighted to report that Prof. Eric Posner (University of Chicago) — who had blogged with us a few years ago — will be visiting again this week, to blog about his and Prof. Adrian Vermeule’s new book, Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic. A very brief summary:

The book argues that the Madisonian system of separation of powers has eroded beyond recognition and been replaced with a system of executive primacy (which others have called the “imperial presidency”) in which Congress and the courts play only a marginal role. Most scholars who have recognized this development have called for a return to the Madisonian system, but we believe that the rise of the executive has resulted from a recognition among political elites that only a powerful executive can address the economic and security challenges of modern times.

Not a thesis to make anyone happy, on the left or right.

But you’ll hear much more detail on the subject this coming week.




The Volokh Conspiracy

Tagged with:
 

(Kenneth Anderson)

At some point soon I will take up directly Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule’s new book, The Executive Unbound, but in the meantime let me flag Harvey Mansfield’s polite but skeptical review in the New York Times Book Review.  He is doubtful of several things — the use of Carl Schmitt, the framing of the Madisonian concern, and other matters integral to the book.  Most interesting to me, however, was his gentle but unmistakeable rejection of the book’s ahistorical reliance upon a version of cost-benefit analysis:

My advice to the authors is, first, to toss out Schmitt from their construction; they don’t really believe (or know) him. Then they should reconsider whether formal institutions like the separation of powers in the Constitution are as insignificant as they say. True, the president manages his news conference to sustain his credibility, but reporters come to it because he is the president, not because he is a rational actor.

Posner and Vermeule belong to the school of legal realism, now dominant in law schools, which believes the law is always the consequence of some power greater than the law, in their case the rational calculation of benefit and cost. Like most economists, they can see no reason for resisting such calculations.

Yet Posner and Vermeule still claim to hold to the rule of law. They do not object to being called professors of law. Students listen to them and readers buy their books because they teach the law, not because they are professors of executive domination, servants of the administrative state. It seems that the rule of law cannot be sustained without the formality and the majesty of a system of law that people respect.

I’m not sure about that last point.  It seems to me that a central claim of the book is that the rule of law just is the administrative state, understood to have a formal constitutional failure but sustained by informal mechanisms.  Thus to be a law professor is to be a servant and an apologist for the administrative state; they see the nature of this role clearly, and it is people like me or Professor Mansfield who do not.  If that is so, however, I quite agree with Professor Mansfield that the book isn’t really about Schmitt at all; indeed, least of all about Schmitt.  Instead it is about what, in terminology of the radical critical journal Telos, would be described as the theory of the ‘Wholly Administered Society’.

(Update:  I’m clipping some of my own conclusions from this post — I really need to present them as part of a longer piece of my own, not simply cut and paste them on here.)




The Volokh Conspiracy

Tagged with:
 

New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s latest sniping at Fox News garnered some unsympathetic media attention. Keller told a New York college audience March 3 that "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair and Balanced'.”
 
The Daily Beast media reporter Howard Kurtz questioned Keller’s judgment, but also inaccurately stated that “The executive editor of The New York Times doesn't generally engage in trashing other news organizations. So Bill Keller caused quite a stir when he unloaded on Fox News.”

In fact, Keller has eagerly and consistently attacked his rivals at Fox News since he replaced Howell Raines (who has also viciously attacked Fox News) as executive editor in July 2003.

Here’s Keller in the April 25, 2010 Times, reviewing a biography of publisher Henry Luce.

By the time of his death, in 1967, that consensus had been torn asunder, and today there is no vehicle, no voice with the coherent power of Luce’s magazines in their heyday. The last of his breed of media tycoon is a 79-year-old Australian billionaire whose impact has been more corrosive than cohesive.

That "Australian billionaire" would be Rupert Murdoch, who, for the record, is an American citizen.

Here’s Keller from the week of January 30, 2009, providing a satirical “day-in-the-life” vignette in an online Q&A session at nytimes.com:

Lunch at the Four Seasons is always a high point. Today it's my weekly tête-à-tête with Bill O'Reilly. He's really not the Neanderthal blowhard he plays on TV. He's totally in on the joke.

Here's Keller on an extended anti-Fox rant on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” on September 1, 2004:

Fox is an interesting question. There is a kind of unspoken non-aggression pact among media that they don't beat up on each other. Fox tends to be the exception in our business. You know, John Carroll, who is the executive editor, basically holds my job at the Los Angeles Times, gave a speech in the spring, and most of which was devoted to Fox News. And in there he argued that what they do isn't really journalism, it's pseudo-journalism, and he defined a number of characteristics that meet his standard of what is journalism, including making a real effort to correct your mistakes when you are confronted with them. And he said that Fox doesn't meet that test. I have to say that, as somebody who watches Fox from time to time, I agree with him. I think there's a lot more heat than light generated by Fox News and it's obviously, it's a free country, you know, they can put what they want on the air, but it feels like it's my business, because I think there's a general cheapening of the discourse, the political discourse in this country and I think Fox is a contributor to that.

More recently, Keller appeared on a January 31, 2010 panel with Marvin Kalb at George Washington University.

I think the effect of Fox News on American public life has been to create a level of cynicism about the news in general. I think it has contributed to the sense that ‘they’re all just, you know, out there with a political agenda, Fox is just more overt about it.’ And I think that’s unhealthy. I think Fox has also raised, we have had a lot of talk since the Gabby Giffords murder, attempted murder, about civility in our national discourse, and I, you know, make no connection between the guy who shot those people in Tucson and the national discourse. But it is true that the national discourse is more polarized and strident than it has been in the past, and to some extent, I would lay that at the feet of Rupert Murdoch, yes.

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with:
 

New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s latest sniping at Fox News garnered some unsympathetic media attention. Keller told a New York college audience March 3 that "I think if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, you're among the most cynical people on planet Earth. I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than 'Fair and Balanced'.”
 
The Daily Beast media reporter Howard Kurtz questioned Keller’s judgment, but also inaccurately stated that “The executive editor of The New York Times doesn't generally engage in trashing other news organizations. So Bill Keller caused quite a stir when he unloaded on Fox News.”

In fact, Keller has eagerly and consistently attacked his rivals at Fox News since he replaced Howell Raines (who has also viciously attacked Fox News) as executive editor in July 2003.

Here’s Keller in the April 25, 2010 Times, reviewing a biography of publisher Henry Luce.

By the time of his death, in 1967, that consensus had been torn asunder, and today there is no vehicle, no voice with the coherent power of Luce’s magazines in their heyday. The last of his breed of media tycoon is a 79-year-old Australian billionaire whose impact has been more corrosive than cohesive.

That "Australian billionaire" would be Rupert Murdoch, who, for the record, is an American citizen.

Here’s Keller from the week of January 30, 2009, providing a satirical “day-in-the-life” vignette in an online Q&A session at nytimes.com:

Lunch at the Four Seasons is always a high point. Today it's my weekly tête-à-tête with Bill O'Reilly. He's really not the Neanderthal blowhard he plays on TV. He's totally in on the joke.

Here's Keller on an extended anti-Fox rant on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” on September 1, 2004:

Fox is an interesting question. There is a kind of unspoken non-aggression pact among media that they don't beat up on each other. Fox tends to be the exception in our business. You know, John Carroll, who is the executive editor, basically holds my job at the Los Angeles Times, gave a speech in the spring, and most of which was devoted to Fox News. And in there he argued that what they do isn't really journalism, it's pseudo-journalism, and he defined a number of characteristics that meet his standard of what is journalism, including making a real effort to correct your mistakes when you are confronted with them. And he said that Fox doesn't meet that test. I have to say that, as somebody who watches Fox from time to time, I agree with him. I think there's a lot more heat than light generated by Fox News and it's obviously, it's a free country, you know, they can put what they want on the air, but it feels like it's my business, because I think there's a general cheapening of the discourse, the political discourse in this country and I think Fox is a contributor to that.

More recently, Keller appeared on a January 31, 2010 panel with Marvin Kalb at George Washington University.

I think the effect of Fox News on American public life has been to create a level of cynicism about the news in general. I think it has contributed to the sense that ‘they’re all just, you know, out there with a political agenda, Fox is just more overt about it.’ And I think that’s unhealthy. I think Fox has also raised, we have had a lot of talk since the Gabby Giffords murder, attempted murder, about civility in our national discourse, and I, you know, make no connection between the guy who shot those people in Tucson and the national discourse. But it is true that the national discourse is more polarized and strident than it has been in the past, and to some extent, I would lay that at the feet of Rupert Murdoch, yes.

NewsBusters.org blogs

Tagged with:
 

Alabama state Republican Executive Committee member claims racial disparity in Huntsville City Schools is the result of genetics, not society.
by Heather Hopkins

Before you panic, consider the source.

In December 2007, Huntsville Alabama City School Board attorney J.R. Brooks mailed four boxes of data to Washington with the hope of convincing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to lift the 1970 court order that ended the district’s dual school system based on race. The Huntsville district is now one of just 201 school systems still under a desegregation order, a group singled out by the Supreme Court and specifically told to keep considering students’ race.

In examining the data, DOJ investigators determined that the district’s student enrollment was divided almost evenly by black and white students, yet the majority of the schools were “racially identifiable black or white due to the composition of their respective student bodies.” The investigation also revealed racial disproportion in the number and severity of disciplinary measures taken, as well as in the offering of advanced placement courses.

Currently, the school district needs to slash almost $ 20 million from the budget, and is considering closing several half-empty schools to reach that goal. However, a February 16, 2011 letter from the DOJ, signed by attorney Allison Brown, warned that “any plan to redraw attendance zone lines or close and consolidate schools must further desegregation.”

But Hugh McInnish, a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee who also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee, claims he knows the real reason racial disparities exist in Huntsville.

In a February 28, 2011 letter, dotted with an impressive number of statistics and graphs, McInnish responded to the DOJ, presenting “proof” that “blacks misbehave on average more frequently than whites do,” and that black students are unable to perform as well in advanced classes as white students. McInnish admonished the DOJ for wanting mankind to, “correct a problem that is not of their making.”

McInnish even felt compelled to hold a press conference to explain his outrageous position from his exclusive gated community home in The Ledges, a golf-course community on Huntsville Mountain.

When asked to comment on McInnish’s claims, Brooks and Dr. Ann Roy Moore, superintendent of Huntsville City Schools, remarked that they did not think the Justice Department officials would consider McInnish’s letter.

Yet, the Huntsville media, including local TV’s WAFF 48 News, saw fit to give McInnish attention, describing his letter as using, “key data to back up his arguments.”

WAFF should note, however, that there is a fatal flaw in the credibility of McInnish’s key data: All of the statistics used to support his claims comes from, “The Color of Crime,” a publication of the New Century Foundation (NCF).

NCF is a race-realist United States organization, founded in 1994 by Jared Taylor and supported by the Pioneer Fund. “Racial realists” contend that races are real rather than social constructs; therefore, racial distinctions are important because racial groups differ genetically with regard to behavioral tendencies such as intelligence and impulsiveness. (Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined, Prof. Joe L. Kincheloe (Editor), Aaron Gresson III (Editor), Shirley R. Steinberg)

NCF also publishes the magazine, American Renaissance. A main theme of the magazine is non-white minorities pose a demographic threat to the United States and other Western nations. The magazine argues that the United States’ major social problems are due to racial diversity and a weakening of the country’s white racial heritage by increased non-white immigration. It comes as no surprise that, according to the NCF report, the color of crime is black.

A closer look indicates McInnish makes a habit of consulting dubious sources in the course of his research. For example, on October 23, 1999, McInnish asked on David Irving’s web site, as to whether, Churchill mentions the Holocaust in his WWII volumes. “How often, and in what depth, did he talk about the gas chambers and the genocide of the Jews? Given the respect Churchill has as a chronicler of the war, the fact that he was at the center of everything happening at that time, and finally that the Holocaust was without question the most poignant fact of the era, I would expect his treatment to have been comprehensive.” (NOTE: This is the link and it is not coming up: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History/McInnish.html)

A loaded question at best, McInnish undoubtedly knew Irving would reply, “not once.” “Undoubtedly”, because in the early 1990s, Irving was a frequent visitor to Germany, where he spoke at neo-Nazi rallies. A chief theme of Irving’s German speeches was that the Holocaust was just a “propaganda exercise”. (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/david-irving)

There is enough to the Huntsville City School’s story to warrant the public’s attention, without the McInnishes of the world muddying the waters. The school district has a 19.5 million dollar deficit to contend with. The Department of Justice has effectively blocked on avenue that might have slashed budget costs. McInnish, and all who care about the state of Huntsville schools and the education of its students, should skip histrionics and concentrate on finding a workable plan to slash spending.

Heather Hopkins is a professional librarian with a special interest in services for underserved and multicultural populations. She holds a BA in English from the University of Alabama, and a Master’s degree in Library and Information Science from the University of South Florida. Heather served as the librarian for the Health Resources and Services Administration, at the FDA Biosciences Library in Maryland. After several years in the Washington, DC area, she recently returned to her hometown of Huntsville, Alabama. She tries to follow Gandhi’s directive to, “be the change” she wants to see in the world.


The Moderate Voice

Tagged with:
 

Alabama state Republican Executive Committee member claims racial disparity in Huntsville City Schools is the result of genetics, not society.
by Heather Hopkins

Before you panic, consider the source.

In December 2007, Huntsville Alabama City School Board attorney J.R. Brooks mailed four boxes of data to Washington with the hope of convincing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to lift the 1970 court order that ended the district’s dual school system based on race. The Huntsville district is now one of just 201 school systems still under a desegregation order, a group singled out by the Supreme Court and specifically told to keep considering students’ race.

In examining the data, DOJ investigators determined that the district’s student enrollment was divided almost evenly by black and white students, yet the majority of the schools were “racially identifiable black or white due to the composition of their respective student bodies.” The investigation also revealed racial disproportion in the number and severity of disciplinary measures taken, as well as in the offering of advanced placement courses.

Currently, the school district needs to slash almost $ 20 million from the budget, and is considering closing several half-empty schools to reach that goal. However, a February 16, 2011 letter from the DOJ, signed by attorney Allison Brown, warned that “any plan to redraw attendance zone lines or close and consolidate schools must further desegregation.”

But Hugh McInnish, a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee who also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee, claims he knows the real reason racial disparities exist in Huntsville.

In a February 28, 2011 letter, dotted with an impressive number of statistics and graphs, McInnish responded to the DOJ, presenting “proof” that “blacks misbehave on average more frequently than whites do,” and that black students are unable to perform as well in advanced classes as white students. McInnish admonished the DOJ for wanting mankind to, “correct a problem that is not of their making.”

McInnish even felt compelled to hold a press conference to explain his outrageous position from his exclusive gated community home in The Ledges, a golf-course community on Huntsville Mountain.

When asked to comment on McInnish’s claims, Brooks and Dr. Ann Roy Moore, superintendent of Huntsville City Schools, remarked that they did not think the Justice Department officials would consider McInnish’s letter.

Yet, the Huntsville media, including local TV’s WAFF 48 News, saw fit to give McInnish attention, describing his letter as using, “key data to back up his arguments.”

WAFF should note, however, that there is a fatal flaw in the credibility of McInnish’s key data: All of the statistics used to support his claims comes from, “The Color of Crime,” a publication of the New Century Foundation (NCF).

NCF is a race-realist United States organization, founded in 1994 by Jared Taylor and supported by the Pioneer Fund. “Racial realists” contend that races are real rather than social constructs; therefore, racial distinctions are important because racial groups differ genetically with regard to behavioral tendencies such as intelligence and impulsiveness. (Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined, Prof. Joe L. Kincheloe (Editor), Aaron Gresson III (Editor), Shirley R. Steinberg)

NCF also publishes the magazine, American Renaissance. A main theme of the magazine is non-white minorities pose a demographic threat to the United States and other Western nations. The magazine argues that the United States’ major social problems are due to racial diversity and a weakening of the country’s white racial heritage by increased non-white immigration. It comes as no surprise that, according to the NCF report, the color of crime is black.

A closer look indicates McInnish makes a habit of consulting dubious sources in the course of his research. For example, on October 23, 1999, McInnish asked on David Irving’s web site, as to whether, Churchill mentions the Holocaust in his WWII volumes. “How often, and in what depth, did he talk about the gas chambers and the genocide of the Jews? Given the respect Churchill has as a chronicler of the war, the fact that he was at the center of everything happening at that time, and finally that the Holocaust was without question the most poignant fact of the era, I would expect his treatment to have been comprehensive.” (NOTE: This is the link and it is not coming up: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History/McInnish.html)

A loaded question at best, McInnish undoubtedly knew Irving would reply, “not once.” “Undoubtedly”, because in the early 1990s, Irving was a frequent visitor to Germany, where he spoke at neo-Nazi rallies. A chief theme of Irving’s German speeches was that the Holocaust was just a “propaganda exercise”. (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/david-irving)

There is enough to the Huntsville City School’s story to warrant the public’s attention, without the McInnishes of the world muddying the waters. The school district has a 19.5 million dollar deficit to contend with. The Department of Justice has effectively blocked on avenue that might have slashed budget costs. McInnish, and all who care about the state of Huntsville schools and the education of its students, should skip histrionics and concentrate on finding a workable plan to slash spending.

Heather Hopkins is a professional librarian with a special interest in services for underserved and multicultural populations. She holds a BA in English from the University of Alabama, and a Master’s degree in Library and Information Science from the University of South Florida. Heather served as the librarian for the Health Resources and Services Administration, at the FDA Biosciences Library in Maryland. After several years in the Washington, DC area, she recently returned to her hometown of Huntsville, Alabama. She tries to follow Gandhi’s directive to, “be the change” she wants to see in the world.


The Moderate Voice

Tagged with:
 

James O’ Keefe released a second NPR video, this time the target was NPR exeutive Betsy Liley who was also in in the first video. Liley, NPR’s senior director of institutional giving, is featured on the phone with the fictitious members of the Muslim brotherhood, who were looking for a way to donate five million dollars anonymously. Liley said that she would indeed be willing to find a way to shield the donors  from a government audit by keeping the donor’s name anonymous.

In a lengthy follow-up phone call with Liley after the lunch, an O’Keefe associate posing as “Ibrahim Kasaam ” of the Muslim Education Action Center (a fictitious entity) expressed concerns that NPR, which receives government funding, would be subject to government audits or would have to disclose the source of its donations.

Liley responded, “If you were concerned about that, you might want to be an anonymous donor and we would certainly, if that was your interest, we would want to shield you from that.”

At another point, Kasaam asked Liley, “It sounded like you’re saying that NPR would be able to shield us from a government audit, is that correct?”

“I think that is the case, especially if you were anonymous, and I can inquire about that,” Liley said. She later informed Kasaam via e-mail that NPR’s management had cleared an anonymous donation from his group.

Based on the video (embedded below) NPR put Liley on administrative leave. Anna Christopher NPR spokeswoman, commented that, “All donations, anonymous and named, are reported to the IRS. NPR complies fully with all tax and financial disclosure regulations.”

As the second video was released (below), the first video was called into question by The Blaze.  Reviewing both the released version and the raw video the Blaze found that in many cases the clips were cut in a way that made Mr. Schiller look worse than he actually was.  The end result may not have been different but the parts left on the cutting room floor would have mitigated some of Mr. Schiller’s statements. After you watch the video below I urge you to read this post at the Blaze.




YID With LID

Tagged with: