A CAREFULLY CRAFTED IMMIGRATION LAW IN ARIZONA

The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible…an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.
For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."
Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"
Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."
As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.
For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.
But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.
Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.
Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.
Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."
The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say.

BY BRYON YORK

VALUE ADDED TAX, the last thing we need.

Some liberals in Congress want to pay for their massive new spending with a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax on the price of goods at each stage of production. While popular in Europe, such a tax is a bad idea for the United States. And a significant number of lawmakers and even White House officials seem to agree.

Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) led a brigade of 85 Senators in a vote denouncing a VAT in America. McCain's non-binding sense of the Senate resolution accurately stated that a VAT would "cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery." Better still, McCain's floor remarks cited Heritage Foundation tax expert J.D. Foster.

Not long after the Senate vote, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted that a national consumer tax "wasn't something that the president had under consideration." So far so good.

But President Obama seems to be singing from a different song sheet. In an interview Wednesday, the President indicated that a value-added tax on Americans is still on the table for consideration. A VAT " is something that has worked for some countries," he said. "It's something that would be novel for the United States."

President Obama has stated that his first priority is to figure out how to reduce wasteful spending and reduce the deficit, so he is willing to consider all options. But research by Heritage experts and countless economists reveals that a VAT would actually invite greater spending and economic turmoil, especially as it would be levied in addition to all other taxes.

Imposing a VAT is critical to the left's "Glut the Beast" strategy, argues Foster, Heritage's Norman B. Ture senior fellow in economic policy. He explains the liberal strategy:

First, raise spending as fast as possible. Here, Mr. Obama and his allies have been notably successful. As a share of our economy, federal spending is up almost a quarter since 2008. The recent passage of Obamacare promises to keep government spending rising rapidly for decades.

In addition, a value-added tax is less detectable to the consumer, yet very costly. Economist Thomas Sowell explains in his book Basic Economics that "the less visible a tax is, the more revenue can be collected without resistance or electoral retribution by the voters." So naturally, the heavy spenders in Congress support this option.

The left's support of a VAT comes as no surprise to some. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) says he "always believed" the Democrats would add a VAT when they won control of the White House and both Chambers of Congress. "Why?" he asks. "Because they've got glutinous spending habits, and they want to spend more, and they need to raise money to do it."

There's no question that the VAT would generate massive new revenues for the federal government. But even the largest tax hikes, which are always harmful to the economy, cannot counter the increasing rate of federal spending, particularly on programs like Social Security and Medicare. In addition, the more money we give to the government, the more we depend on it to give back. And, let's face it, this is never an even trade.

Reducing federal spending and reducing dependency on government are the only workable solutions to lower the deficit and restore prosperity. And a value-added tax does neither.

Lawmakers submit to Obamacare — accidentally

If it's good enough for the American people, it should be good enough for Washington lawmakers, right? Maybe.

In their haste to pass Obama's healthcare overhaul, liberals in Congress overlooked one detail—they have inadvertently made themselves ineligible for the top-notch health care plans previously available to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and instead have accidentally subjected themselves to the disastrous effects of Obamacare.

The Congressional Research Service released a report detailing the provisions in Obama's healthcare reform bill that would require members of Congress and their staffs to surrender their FEHBP coverage in exchange for nationalized insurance. This would leave Congress in an interesting quandary: since the federal exchange will not take effect until 2014, the members and their staff would be left without insurance until then.

» Read the ongoing Side Effects series on Heritage's Foundry blog for more stories like this

Jerry Markon of the Washington Post writes: "The confusion was one of several potential problems that congressional Republicans and health-care experts have raised over how the landmark legislation affects members of Congress and their staffs."

Devonia Smith points out in the Washington Examiner that "the law puts Congress in the same boat they built for the rest of America, without a clue what the new health care reform will mean to them."

But Congress needn't have worried: the Office of Personnel Management released a statement this week citing a "drafting error" in the bill, which did not specify the date at which lawmakers will be required to relinquish their current insurance plans. Because of this oversight, members of Congress will be able to keep their current FEHBP plans until 2014—news that was received with sighs of relief[w1] .

And even when the federal exchanges do come into existence, a whole slew of exemptions built into the language of the bill excuses many federal employees and even White House staff from having to participate.

This is just one example of the dangers of rushing to pass poorly designed, unpopular legislation. The fact that Congress can't even manage its own health care plan does not bode well for American citizens. Though they may have found a way to finagle their way out of this predicament, they are still leaving the American citizens with a sloppy, substandard health care program.

RACE factors into the evaluation of Toby Gerhart

 

 

PALO ALTO, Calif. – If you’ve seen Toby Gerhart carry the football, you’re well aware that the former Stanford halfback and Heisman Trophy runner-up is about as subtle as Iron Man. It’s no surprise, then, that as the NFL draft approaches, the player one AFC front-office executive described as “a bowling ball with butter knives” is hell-bent on obliterating the perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed in the pros.

“I’m just a running back who tries to do what he can to win games and score touchdowns, but people have their opinions, and it’s kind of frustrating,” Gerhart said earlier this month between bites of pizza. “People say, ‘He’s slow,’ or ‘He’s not going to be able to break tackles at the next level.’ In college I went up against players like [USC’s] Brian Cushing(notes) and Clay Matthews(notes) – guys who ended up making the Pro Bowl [as NFL rookies] – and I ran through their tackles. It’s too bad people look at you all weird because of a stereotype.”
  When NFL scouts look at Gerhart, they see a 6-foot, 231-pound power back who ran for 1,871 yards and 27 touchdowns last season, getting edged out by Alabama’s Mark Ingram in the closest Heisman vote in history. When they look at Gerhart’s numbers from the NFL scouting combine, they see that he ran a 4.50-second 40-yard dash and registered a 38-inch vertical leap, both impressive numbers for a player his size.
Yet they also see a white guy trying to make it in the league as a feature back, something that has become increasingly rare in this era. Peyton Hillis(notes), now with the Cleveland Browns, led the Denver Broncos in rushing yards in 2008, but was limited to just 54 last season in part because of 2009 draft pick Knowshon Moreno’s(notes) addition.
Race shouldn’t be an issue, of course, but Gerhart can’t help but believe that it has colored the opinions of at least some potential employers.
“One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back,” Gerhart says. “They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I’m just out there playing ball. I don’t think about that.’ I didn’t really know what to say.”
One longtime NFL scout insisted that Gerhart’s skin color will likely prevent the Pac-10’s offensive player of the year from being drafted in Thursday’s first round.
“He’ll be a great second-round pickup for somebody, but I guarantee you if he was the exact same guy – but he was black – he’d go in the first round for sure,” the scout said. “You could make a case that he’s a Steven Jackson-type – doesn’t have blazing speed but he’s strong and powerful and versatile.”
Gerhart isn’t used to such comparisons. He’s typically cast as the next John Riggins or Mike Alstott(notes) or, less flatteringly, as an updated version of another former Stanford star, Tommy Vardell, who had an unremarkable NFL career after being picked ninth overall in the 1992 draft.
“You hear that I’m like those guys, or like [current Cincinnati Bengals back] Brian Leonard(notes),” Gerhart says. “I see myself more like Deuce McAllister(notes) or Michael Turner(notes).”
It’s possible, of course, that Gerhart is overestimating his own abilities – if so, he certainly wouldn’t be the first player to do so publicly in the weeks leading up to the draft.
I’ve spoken with numerous NFL talent evaluators about Gerhart over the past few months, and there are plenty of skeptics who don’t seem to be locked into mindless stereotypes.
“I don’t like him,” one NFC general manager told me at the combine. “If he’s your No. 1 back, he’s going to get killed by the end of the season, because he takes too many hits. And he has no special teams value. To me, what you see is what you get. He’s pretty good at everything, but he doesn’t do anything that’s special at our level.”
Said an AFC front-office executive: “This guy runs exactly the way the hole is blocked and gets exactly what you think he’s going to get – maybe a little more because he runs so hard, but nothing more explosive than that. He runs so upright, he’s going to get lit up.”’

“There’s no reason I shouldn’t really like him, but I just don’t,” added another AFC personnel executive. “He’s not really shifty, but he gets yards. He’s fast, but it’s a long speed, and not really a quick speed. You want me to compare him to a black guy? How about T.J. Duckett(notes)? There’s a big, fast guy who hasn’t been productive in the NFL.”
Yet others believe Gerhart’s exceptional production at Stanford, a program that was struggling mightily upon his arrival, is indicative of his immense pro potential.
“I love the guy,” says former Cardinals, Rams and 49ers scout David Razzano, who is based on the West Coast and attended several of Gerhart’s games over the past two seasons. “You’ve got to see him live to appreciate him. He’s not just a plodder. He’s deceptively fast, elusive, has quick feet and has great vision at the line of scrimmage. And he’s great in the red zone.
“He’s a bell-cow back. If there’s nothing there, he’ll get four yards. He was productive in high school and in college, and guys like that don’t change – he’ll be productive in the NFL.”

Gerhart, who was flown in for pre-draft visits by the Baltimore Ravens, Philadelphia Eagles, Browns and San Diego Chargers, says he’d consider playing fullback in the pros “if that’s what it takes to get on the field.” But he bristles at the notion that it might even be a consideration. “Prior to the combine, all I heard was, ‘He’s gonna run in the 4.7s,’ ” Gerhart says. “I read this blog that said, ‘Why was Toby the only running back who had to run under 4.6 to not be classified as a fullback?’ Fifteen other guys ran in the 4.6s at the combine, and nothing was said about them [playing fullback].”
Plenty of Pac-10 defenders wish Gerhart had been typecast as a fullback during his collegiate career – or that the former Cardinal baseball star had chosen to focus on that sport. Certainly, no one at USC was devastated that Gerhart decided not to return for a fourth college season after his epic performance in Stanford’s stunning, 55-21 victory over the Trojans in Los Angeles last November, the high point of an 8-5 season that ended with a narrow Sun Bowl defeat to Oklahoma.
“That’s by far my favorite victory,” Gerhart says of the USC game. “We were up big at the end and hitting ‘em in the mouth – we ran 15 of the last 18 plays from the exact same formation, where we’d motion the tight end one way or the other and I’d run to that side. At one point one of their linebackers yelled, ‘If you guys run ‘Power’ one more time I’m walking off the field.’ It was classic.”
Oh, and here’s some background information of which NFL teams might want to take note: Pete Carroll, USC’s coach at the time, had tried to recruit Gerhart out of high school – as a fullback.
In other words, underestimate him at your own peril, and brace yourself for maximum impact.

BOTOX MAY DIMINISH THE EXPERIENCE OF EMOTIONS

DO you smile because you're happy, or are you happy because you are smiling? Darwin believed that facial expressions are indeed important for experiencing emotions. In The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, he wrote that "the free expression by outward signs of an emotion intensifies it...[whereas]...the repression...of all outward signs softens our emotions." This idea was subsequently elaborated by the great psychologist William James, who suggested that "every representation of a movement awakens in some degree the actual movement which is its object." 

Botox, which is used by millions of people every year to reduce wrinkles and frown lines on the forehead, works by paralyzing the muscles involved in producing facial expressions. A study due to be published in the journal Psychological Science suggests that by doing so, it impairs the ability to process the emotional content of language, and may diminish the quality of emotional experiences.
David Havas of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his colleagues have been investigating the relationship between emotion and language. In a study published in 2007, they covertly manipulated facial expressions by asking participants to hold a pen either in their teeth, to simulate smiling, or between their lips, to prevent them from smiling. This was found to affect the time taken to read sentences containing emotional content: reading times for sentences describing pleasant situations were shorter when the participants were smiling than when they were prevented from smiling, and this was reversed when they read sentences describing unpleasant situations. Thus, understanding of the  sentences was apparently enhanced when their emotional content matched the participants' facial expression, and impaired when it did not.
Other researchers have shown that reading words describing emotions can activate the muscles involved in producing the facial expressions associated with those emotions. For example, reading negative emotional words causes contraction of the corrugator supercilii, which pulls the eyebrows down towards the centre of the face to produce vertical frown lines at the top of the nose, whereas reading positive emotional words activates the zygomaticus, which raises the corners of the mouth to produce a smile. These findings provide evidence that involuntary facial expressions can evoke emotions, and suggest that the brain mechanisms involved in experiencing emotions are also used in understanding the emotional content of language.
Following on from this earlier work, Havas recruited 40 women for the new study, all of whom were seeking first-time botox injections as a cosmetic treatment for frown lines on the forehead. These participants were asked to read sentences describing happy, sad or emotionally neutral situations. Immediately afterwards, they were taken to the physician, who gave them a single injection of botox into the corrugator supercilii, or "frown" muscle. (Botox acts by inhibiting the release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine from motor neurons, leading to temporary muscle paralysis 24-48 hours later. Typically, the procedure is repeated after 3-4 months; with time, the muscles may atrophy, or waste away, through disuse.) Two weeks after the injection, the participants returned to lab to read another set of similar sentences.
The reseachers found that botox slowed the reading of the sentences containing sad emotional content, which, as the earlier work showed, would normally cause the frown muscle to contract. The reading time for the happy and neutral sentence was the same in both sessions. The researchers assume that the increase in reading time means that paralysis of the frown muscles hindered the participants' understanding of the emotional content of the sad sentences. They also argue that their findings support the hypothesis that feedback from the muscles involved in producing facial expressions is critical in regulating emotional experiences.
The media have overstated the findings of this study, by reporting that botox can damage relationships and cause those that use it to lose friends. The results may suggest that botox can impair emotional reactivity, but this is by no means conclusive, and the news stories completely overlook the more profound implication of the results - that by paralyzing the muscles involved in producing facial expressions, botox may actually diminish the experience of emotion in those who use it. According to statistics compiled by the American Society for Plastic Surgeons, some 4.6 million people received botox injections in 2008 in the United States alone, making it by far the most popular cosmetic procedure. Given the widespread and unregulated use of botox, the findings suggest that further investigation of its possible effects on cognitive function is needed.

PAUL RYAN ON JOBS,TAXES,SPENDING AND BROKEN PROMISES

Rep. Paul Ryan On Jobs, Taxes, Spending & Broken Promises

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on "Hannity."

PROMISES, PROMISES, PROMISES/ OBAMA BACKERS SHOW SIGNS OF DISAPPOINTMENT

·                                  

Fri, Apr 9 2010

Gay rights activists heckled President Barack Obama this week at a Democratic event that exposed signs of disenchantment threatening the party in November's congressional elections.

Five million first-time voters turned out in 2008, many drawn by Obama's promise of hope and overwhelmingly voting for Democrats. Now disappointed, or at least apathetic, they may not go to the polls this year.
Obama's support has dropped below 50 percent from nearly 70 percent after 15 months in office, Gallup opinion polls show.
Gay rights supporters, anti-abortion activists, environmentalists and backers of immigration reform all have seen their agendas stalled, with watered-down healthcare the main accomplishment of Obama's once-ambitious agenda.
At Monday's rally in Los Angeles, protesters shouted at Obama to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policy that allows gays to serve if they keep quiet about their sexual preference. Gays believe that makes them second-class citizens, and Obama has vowed to repeal the policy.
"Hey hold on a second. We are going to do that," he said. "I don't know why you're hollering," he added.
Supporters shouted "Yes we can," his slogan from the 2008 election, and "Be quiet," but the discontent lingers.
Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan insisted that opinion polls showed more than 80 percent of liberals approved of Obama. By comparison, Republicans right and center are locked in a "bloody civil war," he said.
Obama himself acknowledged during the day that "some folks are impatient and some folks just didn't realize how long this was going to take, how hard each battle was going to be. And so people get kind of worn down."
Many on the left who want more are fighting the president and one another. Others are abandoning politics. Both trends bode poorly for Democrats, who have controlled both houses of Congress in addition to the White House since January 2009.
All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs along with a third of the 100 seats in the Senate.
APATHY SAPS SUPPORT
Many gay activists would not show up to heckle Obama. They have stopped paying attention altogether.
"Obama was a vessel that everybody poured their hopes into. The gay community was no different," said John Henning, director of the Los Angeles-based grass-roots group Love Honor Cherish, before the president's California visit.
"What is really happening in the gay community is we are going into a hibernation phase," Henning added.
The sentiment is widespread.
"Even in the best of conditions, the Democrats would have a slight retrenchment of voters," said Stanford University professor Gary Segura, who is also a researcher at pollster Latino Decisions.
"But we're not in the best of conditions. We have a lot of disappointed Democrats and so I would expect more significant retrenchment, a lot of disappearing voters."
Blacks, Latinos and young people made up the bulk of the new voters who secured comfortable congressional majorities for the Democrats in 2008. Each could be a problem this year.
Obama is the first black U.S. president and more than 90 percent of black voters still approve of his record, Gallup says. But African-American members of Congress say job creation is critical and unemployment is roughly twice the national average among black males over the age of 20.

For many Latinos, including nearly 11 million illegal immigrants, the lack of an immigration bill and heavy use of deportation are a double slap in the face.
"A lot of people are not going to vote," said Salvador Reza, operator of a day-laborer center in Arizona. "(Obama) would have to actually come through with ... a serious immigration reform effort, or people are going to abandon him," he said.
Keeping Latinos happy should be a no-brainer for the Democrats, the party of choice for the fastest growing minority largely because of a pro-immigrant stance that contrasts with the anti-immigrant rhetoric of many Republicans.
Obama campaigned on making immigration reform a priority, but the way forward for illegal immigrants and the employers who say they need them is no more clear than it was before Obama took office.
FIGHTS WITHIN THE LEFT
The "everyone's in it together" feeling of the 2008 election has been replaced with "me first" on many fronts.
Obama's biggest accomplishment, the healthcare overhaul, opened old wounds. A fight over whether federal funds could be used to pay for abortion tied up the bill and split the party, which has been a strong supporter of abortion rights but now has a significant wing opposed to abortion.

Stupak has dropped out in the face of what was expected to be a bitter primary race against an opponent backed by NARAL and other abortion rights groups. This could open the district for Republicans in November as Democratic success in such rural heartland areas has been based on the party fielding candidates with conservative views on issues such as abortion.
Similar fights will be played out elsewhere.
"Pro-life Democrats generally win in the more conservative states in the Midwest, if you think of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. A pro-choice candidate would have a more difficult time," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
Other issues are causing rifts in the ranks -- among them climate change legislation, now stuck in Congress.
Former Vice President Al Gore's environmental group is trying to push aside rival left-wing groups vying to be the next issue in line for congressional attention. "Tell our Senators: We got next!" Gore's Repower America, urged on March 26.
POTENTIAL LOSSES
Politicians are counting the races at risk.
Four of the 10 Senate races where Democrats may lose, including Majority Leader Harry Reid's re-election bid in Nevada, are in states that had above-average increases in turnout between 2006 and 2008, Professor Tom Schaller of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, calculated on political blog fivethirtyeight.com.
Battles for governor that could be affected by the new 2008 voters include California, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Georgia and Illinois, he calculated, noting that new governors will oversee redrawing federal voting districts after the 2010 census.
The voters could affect the outcome of the majority of 23 highly contested House of Representatives races. Democrats' key to winning is not persuading moderates but mobilizing the newer voters, Schaller said.Michigan anti-abortion rights congressman Bart Stupak, who voted for the healthcare bill after getting a pledge from Obama not to use federal funds for abortion, became the number one target for abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.San Francisco videographer Joe Razo, a 24-year-old black man, backs Obama but needs to be convinced that congressional races matter. "I kind of just do the presidential elections," he said.

YOU LIVE AND DIE WITH A BURKHA

Muslim woman strangled by her burkha in freak go-kart accident

A woman wearing a burkha (file photo). A Muslim woman has died after her burkha became caught in a go-kart she was driving

A young Muslim woman had died after her burkha became snagged in a go-kart.
The 24-year-old woman, who has not yet been named, died a terrifying death today when a fluttering part of her burkha became caught in the wheels of a go-kart she was driving near the town of  Port Stephens, north of Sydney.
The Muslim clothing the woman was wearing flew back as she sped around the track and part of it became entangled in the go-kart's wheels.
She was strangled in a second and crashed the vehicle.
Despite the efforts of paramedics who rushed to her aid, the neck and throat injuries she suffered were so severe that doctors were unable to revive her when she arrived at the John Hunter Hospital in the New South Wales city of Newcastle.
The young woman was riding the go-kart at a popular recreational area known as Bob's Farm, which offers rides of up to 15 minutes at a time.
Her death is being likened to that of American dancer Isadora Duncan,  acknowledged as being the creator of modern dance, and who was famous for the flowing silk carves she liked to wear. 
But while riding in an open-top car in Nice in 1927, her scarf became  entangled in one of the vehicle's spoked wheels and she was strangled.

BLACK CONSERVATIVES TAKE HEAT

Black conservative tea party backers take heat

Apr 6 06:07 PM US/Eastern

...

...

, ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.
"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.
Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black—or that most tea partyers are white—should have nothing to do with it, they say.
"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.
Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns—and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition.
But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole—or race a reason to support it.
Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is "not about a black or white issue."
"It's not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."
Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the tea party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.
Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election—and their distaste for his policies—with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.
For black candidates like McGlowan, tea party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message.
"I'm so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys," the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a tea party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.
Tea party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives—away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.
Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.
Black conservatives don't want to have to apologize for their divergent views.
"I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.
Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.
"I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"
Among the 37 black Republicans running for U.S. House and Senate seats in November is Charles Lollar of Maryland's 5th District.
A tea party supporter running against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Lollar says he's finding support in unexpected places.
The 38-year-old U.S. Marine Corps reservist recently walked into a bar in southern Maryland decorated with a Confederate flag. It gave his wife Rosha pause.
"I said, 'You know what, honey? Many, many of our Southern citizens came together under that flag for the purpose of keeping their family and their state together,'" Lollar recalled. "The flag is not what you're to fear. It's the stupidity behind the flag that is a problem. I don't think we'll find that in here. Let's go ahead in."
Once inside, they were treated to a pig roast, a motorcycle rally—and presented with $5,000 in contributions for his campaign.
McGlowan, one of three GOP candidates in north Mississippi's 1st District primary, seeks a seat held since 2008 by Democrat Travis Childers. The National Republican Congressional Committee has supported Alan Nunnelee, chairman of the state Senate Appropriations Committee, who is also pursuing tea party voters.
McGlowan believes the tea party movement has been unfairly portrayed as monolithically white, male and middle-aged, though she acknowledged blacks and Hispanics are a minority at most events.
Racist protest signs at some tea party rallies and recent reports by U.S. Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Barney Frank, D-Mass., that tea partyers shouted racial and anti-gay slurs at them have raised allegations of racism in the tea party movement.
Black members of the movement say it is not inherently racist, and some question the reported slurs. "You would think—something that offensive—you would think someone got video of it," Bazar, the conservative blogger, said.
"Just because you have one nut case, it doesn't automatically equate that you've got an organization that espouses (racism) as a sane belief," Johnson said.
Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, suggested a bit of caution.
"I'm sure the reason that (black conservatives) are involved is that from an ideological perspective, they agree," said Shelton. "But when those kinds of things happen, it is very important to be careful of the company that you keep."
___

porsche 918 spyder plug-in hybrid concept with 78 mpg and 62 in 3.2 seconds

Here you go, have your cake and eat it too. Porsche is looking to prove that the best of both worlds don't have to be mutually exclusive with the 918 Spyder concept scheduled to debut tomorrow at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show. Looking a bit like a Carrera GT evolved, the 918 Spyder is powered by both a 500-horsepower V8 and a pair of electric motors (one for each axle) producing an additional 218 hp or 160kW. At full gallop, the concept can theoretically reach 62 mph in 3.2 seconds and nip 198 mph on the high end. On the flip side, Porsche says it can also achieve 78 miles per gallon and emit just 70 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

How does a supercar have such range? Well, the 918 Spyder concept is a parallel hybrid just like your mom's Prius (well not just like). That means the two powertrains, gas and electric, can operate together or separately to motivate the wheels into motion. There are no less than four modes that configure the powertrains for anything from maximum efficiency to maximum performance and everything in between. The E-Drive mode means pure electric power, and the car can reportedly last up to 16 miles on electrons alone. Next up is Hybrid mode, which is just what it sounds like and would probably be the mode for everyday around town driving. The Sport Hybrid mode again uses both powertrains, but tips the needle a bit more towards performance with most power reaching the rear wheels. Finally, the Race Hybrid mode means all systems are go for the lowest lap times possible (Porsche says it can do the Nordschleife in less than 7:30 minutes). There's an even a push-to-pass button (if only it were that easy) that adds a bit of E-boost on the straights and, of course, regenerative braking is present and accounted for.

Lastly, take a good look at the interior because Porsche says it offers a glimpse at future interiors from the automaker. Sounds good enough to buy so far, right? Too bad, because it's just a concept. We'll bring you live shots of the 918 Spyder concept tomorrow after it debuts in Geneva, so sit t

RUSH TO OBAMA

Limbaugh responds to Obama: 'Never in my life have I seen a regime like this'

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
04/02/10 9:40 AM EDT

In his new interview with CBS, President Obama refers to the "troublesome" talk and "vitriol" of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. "Keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out," Obama says.  "It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious, and people are feeling like there is a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans. I think the vast majority of Americans know that we're trying hard, that I want what's best for the country."
I asked Limbaugh what he thought about the president's comments. His program's popularity is undeniably soaring now, but has it risen and fallen with economic anxiety -- that is, was he less popular during times of economic security and more popular in times of economic worries? Since Limbaugh has been broadcasting nationally for more than 20 years, there ought to be some sort of pattern, if what Obama says is accurate.
"I have yet to have a down year at the EIB Network," Limbaugh responds. "I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what's best for the country. Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely. I have never seen the media so supportive of a regime amassing so much power. And I have never known as many people who literally fear for the future of the country."
The point, Limbaugh says, is not that listeners are feeling anxiety about the economy, although many undoubtedly are.  It's that they are feeling anxiety about the Obama agenda. 

BELGIUM MOVES TO BECOME FIRST EUROPEAN COUNTRY TO BAN THE BURKA,

• By Mail Foreign Service

Potential outlaw: Burka wearers could be jailed if they are caught in public

Belgium is on the verge of becoming the first European nation to ban the burka.
A parliamentary committee agreed yesterday to outlaw the wearing of face-covering veils in public. The full Parliament will vote later this month.
Under the proposals, women could face a week in prison or a fine for wearing a veil in public.
There are an estimated 650,000 Muslims in Belgium – 6 per cent of the population.
The text of the new law does not specifically mention burkas but makes it illegal for anyone to wear clothing ‘that covers all or most of the face’ in any public place.
Left-wing MP Denis Ducarme left no doubt the rules were targeting-Muslim extremists.
He said after the vote by the home affairs committee: ‘This sends a very strong signal to radical Islamists.’
The French- speaking liberals who have proposed the law argue that an inability to identify people presents a security risk and that the veil is a ‘walking prison’ for women.
Daniel Bacquelaine, the bill’s chief promoter, said the ban might also be used against potentially violent demonstrators who covered their faces.
He estimated that only a few hundred women in Belgium wore facial veils, but said it was a rising trend. 

The MP said Belgium did not wish to follow the ‘bad examples’ of Britain and the Netherlands, where he said many Muslims lived in separate communities.
The proposal is expected to become law as early as June as it has the support of all five parties in the coalition government. But opponents may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
There have been debates over banning the burka in France, Switzerland and Italy.
This week France’s highest administrative body said a full burka ban, which is supported by all political parties, could violate the French constitution and European law.
Brussels has been linked to Islamic extremist terror operations a number of times since September 11. In 2003, 18 men were convicted of involvement in a terror cell with links to Al Qaeda.