Gitmo Welfare? Let's Start an "Adopt-a-Terrorist" Program.

Your tax dollars may soon be paying to house and feed Guantanamo Bay Naval Base terrorists in your own backyard. Seems that no one wants some of them, we feel obligated to release and take care of some of them just so others will consider taking them, and so we'll be stuck feeding them while they plot our demise.

OK, OK, yes we're feeding and housing them now courtesy of the U.S. Military. However, where they sit right now is in a jail where all their plotting and conniving is for naught. They don't have the freedom to walk into your neighborhood mall and shop, or maybe blow it up if the mood strikes.

Once released, who's going to hire them? Demolition crews maybe? How are they going to live in a country that is foreign to them? Foreign to them at the moment... their long-term goal is to clear it of the infidels and call it home.

They don't have to worry about working or where they'll live, their kindly Uncle Sam is going to give them a nice home right next to more malcontents ripe for recruitment.

According to the Pentagon over 60 former Guantanamo inmates are free and are involved again with terroristic activities. Can we not learn?

I know, let's get some of those loud-mouth Hollywood types to start an "adopt-a-terrorist" program. They can give them a nice room in one of their homes, or better yet, give them an entire house on the beach. There aren't that many terrorists left in Gitmo, it should be easy to find a star for each of those waiting their turn to be released.

If they're not willing, how about if those who are waiving their hands saying 'yes, yes, yes, let's let those poor terrorist go' take on a few? Shoot, why can't Obama put up a couple in his Chicago home? After all he has a nice new home in D.C.

I just watched a video in JMac Politics where Harry Reid talked about our tax system being voluntary. If it's voluntary, then I want a bit more control over where out tax dollars are being spent. I want to make sure that none of my hard earned money goes to house or feed any of the freed Guantanamo inmates. I'll gladly pay to keep them there.

During his news conference, [National Intelligence Director Dennis ] Blair also said the Obama administration is still wrestling with what to do with the remaining 240 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which the president has ordered closed.

Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening, may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed.

That would happen when they can't be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won't take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighers (WEE'-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can't find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China.

Blair said the former prisoners would have get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.

"We can't put them out on the street," he said.

Blair said the U.S. government is building dossiers on each of the prisoners at Guantanamo and is still developing the process that will determine what happens to them. Some may face criminal trials in the U.S. civilian courts and be imprisoned in U.S. jails. Others will be remanded to their home governments for continued jailing or potential rehabilitation.

The Pentagon claims more than 60 former Guantanamo inmates have been released by their home governments and are believed to be engaged in militant activities. It has not released a list of those former prisoners. Two of the top al-Qaida leaders in Yemen are former inmates, according to both al-Qaida and U.S. intelligence officials. And the Taliban's top operations officer in southern Afghanistan was released from Guantanamo in 2007, according to U.S. intelligence and military officials.

The above is from this Associated Press article:

Official: Mexico not in danger of collapse
By PAM HESS – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Mexican government is not on the verge of collapse, the top U.S. intelligence official said Thursday, seeking to tamp down increasing alarm over the powerful and violent drug cartels operating in the country that is the United States' southern neighbor.

Obama passing new law to allow searching of PC's, laptops, and media devices???

First I've heard of this one. I will stress this is the first I have heard of this one. Again... OK, 'nuff, right? I will be looking into this to see if there is anything to it. IF it's true, we are truly heading toward Big Brother, socialism and worse.

Give it a break New York Times

Isn't it bizarre the way some libs just can't move on with their lives? I can just picture Carol Kawsuk Yoon sitting around sipping a drink with her friends yucking it up because she slipped this zinger into a scientific piece. It's a cry for acceptance, a cry for inclusion.

Leave your lib leanings at home where they belong when you're writing, puleeze.

Wall Street Journal: Wannabe Pundits

Carol Kaesuk Yoon of the New York Times gets points for creativity in working a wisecrack about George W. Bush into the lead paragraph of a science piece:

After producing superlatives like the world's biggest statue of a jackrabbit and the nation's most unpopular modern-day president, Texas can now boast what may be its most bizarre and undoubtedly its slimiest topper yet: the world's largest known colony of clonal amoebas.

Texas amoebas that get in trouble with the law also face a problem with prison overcrowding. The correctional facility where they are housed has only one cell.

ALG President Urges Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject Drug Czar Nomination

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to reject President Barack Obama's recent nomination to drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske “as a disgrace to the office for which the Senate is being asked to confirm him to.”

“Gil Kerlikowske, who would serve as the nation's drug czar, was soft on crime and soft on drugs as Seattle Police Chief,” said Wilson in a statement.

Wilson cited Kerlikowske's tolerance of marijuana possession, his “soft” police tactics, and his failure to discipline officer misconduct as disqualifying him from the nation's top anti-drug law enforcement post.

“This is a man who 88 percent of the Seattle Police Officers Guild once voted no confidence in after he ordered officers to stand idly by during a 2001 Mardi Gras riot,” said Wilson in a statement.

“Dozens of people were injured, several women were sexually assaulted, and an innocent man got killed amid the violence. When the victim's family sued, the city settled out of court for $1.75 million and was forced to acknowledge that Kerlikowske's police strategy had presented a public safety threat,” said Wilson.

The letter specifically notes that Kerlikowske condoned the creation of an “arrest-free zone” to dispense health information to criminals. Wilson cited an “analysis by the mayor's staff [that] showed the program made little difference in the lives of those it targets.”

Wilson also cited that the NAACP, along with the Minority Executive Directors Coalition, called for his resignation in 2007 after an incident of racial profiling that “Kerlikowske repeatedly refused to discipline officers and gave others only a slap on the wrist…”

Wilson believes that Kerlikowske's nomination “follows a pattern by President Obama of nominating some of the most ill-suited persons for particular posts.”

“Either President Obama is deliberately attempting to lower the bar, or this is simply one the single-most botched series of appointments by a sitting president ever,” Wilson concluded.

President Obama’s Stealth Plan to Socialize Health Care

Campaigning in Albuquerque, New Mexico, this past summer, then-candidate Barack Obama told a 1,800 person town hall meeting: “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.” So while President Barack Obama indicated yesterday that he is open to altering his health plan, Americans should always keep in mind what President Obama’s true end goal really is. And after just six weeks in office he has already made two significant steps towards that goal. If Americans hope to retain and expand their right to make their own health care decisions, there are two elements of President Obama’s future health care reform that must be avoided at all costs.

This past August the U.S. Census Bureau released a study the results of which will probably surprise many Americans listening to the rhetoric from yesterday’s White House health care forum. Both the rate and number of people without health insurance declined from 15.8% in 2006 to 15.3% in 2007. The reason for this drop? The percent of Americans with private health insurance is on the decline, mostly as a result of the steady erosion of employer-based coverage, while the percentage of Americans with government insurance is rising even faster. This trend is due entirely to the never ending expansion of government run health care eligibility and the inevitable private sector crowd-out that accompanies government growth.

President Obama achieved an acceleration of this trend when he signed into law an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that removed requirements that participants either be poor or a child. But President Obama’s call to create a public health care plan that will “compete” with private plans is far worse. According to a study by the Lewin Group a public health plan open to all Americans and set at Medicare reimbursement levels would force 118.5 million Americans out of private health care and into socialized medicine.

But the steady substitution of private health care for a government run plan is only half of the socialized medicine equation. As even President Obama noted yesterday, expanding government health care to more and more Americans will be extremely expensive. That is where the health care rationing comes in. President Obama already laid the groundwork for health care rationing by dramatically expanding funding for the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) council in the stimulus bill, and even without former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) his health care plan will include a Federal Health Board that will turn that research into regulation. There is no reason why private-sector or government officials should not have access to the best information on what works and what doesn’t. Nor is there any reason why such scientific evaluations should not be widely available to doctors and patients alike. But President Obama has made it clear he intends to use the data from CER to control health care costs from Washington in a completely top down fashion. Daschle was frank about this fact in his health care book: “Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their ability to choose certain treatments.”

So that is the two pronged approach to the ultimate goal of nationalized medicine in America. Quietly expand the percentage of Americans that are in government run health care and then, when the costs inevitably explode, have unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington ration care. There is an alternative. Some of which the Obama Administration even supports like removing the tax benefit of employer-sponsored health care coverage. Removing this regressive tax benefit will untie Americans health care coverage from their employers and help move the country towards a truly market based consumer driven health care model. Health care coverage can be expanded in a cost efficient manner, but only by empowering Americans to make health care decisions with their doctors.

Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell. www.heritage.org

Declining Defense

For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward.

The White House proposes to spend $533.7 billion on the Pentagon, a 4% increase over 2009. Include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would be another $130 billion (or a total of $664 billion), and overall defense spending would be around 4.2% of GDP, the same as 2007.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595811964905929.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Yes, we're living in Bizarro World. We'll increase spending welfare programs that keep people on the dole and decrease the money we spend to protect them (and all the rest of the nation). Bizarre.