Why are Houston, TX police testing spy drones?

Houston, TX police didn't know that KPRC television cameras were watching when they convened a group of law enforcement and Homeland Security officials to launch an unmanned drone spy plane. When they did realize the media was present, officials threatened to have the Federal Aviation Administration charge the KPRC helicopter pilot with violation of restricted air space. Unfortunately for the secrecy-seeking tyrant-wannabes, the FAA insisted there were no air space restrictions in the area.



How will local law enforcement use drone technology, which was developed for spying on and killing terrorists? Houston Police Department (HPD) spokesman Martha Montalvo admits that this technology makes covert police activity possible. "I'm not ruling anything out," she notes at a hastily-convened press conference.

According to this report, HPD officials "will tackle privacy and illegal search issues later." But this isn't Afghanistan or Pakistan, it's still the United States of America. We are governed by our Constitution, which guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Shouldn't privacy and illegal searches be among the first issues we consider?

TSA keeping us safe from CNN reporters

Think the Federal government can't muscle its way into your life any more than it already does? CNN's Anderson Cooper and Drew Griffin explain how the Transportation Security Administration can make your ordinary, law-abiding life miserable:



According to a Northeast Intelligence Network report, Americans who opt out of radiation-emitting body scanners operated by TSA are being placed on a "Non-Islamic Domestic Terrorist" list by the US Department of Homeland Security.

Naming ordinary American travelers "domestic extremists" is insane. Every American should contact their elected officials - Federal, state and even local - to complain about this. Rather than truly focusing on air travel security, the TSA is being used to control and condition American citizens to the idea that Federal permission is required for everything in life. Congress must act immediately to stop repeated TSA violations of our Fourth Amendment rights.

If we accept all this as "normal," the terrorists have indeed won.

How much is Obama spending on his India trip?

There are plenty of speculative reports floating around about how much President Obama is spending on his trip to India. A simple online news search turns up thousands of reports pegging the bill at around $200 million per day.

The White House remains tight-lipped, saying only that most of Obama's staff will accompany him, as will the First Lady and their two children. A recent official blog post claims these reports are "wildy inflated."

Security for a trip to a known terrorist haven is understandably expensive. We'd be the first to agree that no details of Presidential security should be made public, and one of the last to complain about the cost of such arrangements.

The real question is whether or not the President truly needs to be present personally for what appears to be a massive "junket" at best, or, at worst, an Obama family vacation with a few business-related trappings tacked onto an otherwise touristy itinerary.

Whether the actual cost is $200 million a day or only $1 million for the entire trip, American citizens have a right to know how their money is being spent, and why. The White House can, and should, tell us how much this trip costs.

In an economy when nearly one in ten US citizens is unemployed and home foreclosures are displacing thousands, frugality with our tax dollars would seem a prudent trait for the President to adopt. With his continuing profilgate spending, President Obama gives the strong impression that he doesn't really care about any of this.

Good riddance, NPR

Vivian Schiller, president and CEO of National Public Radio, had the audacity to release an internal memo to NPR affiliates that was full of blatant lies about the firing of Juan Williams.

We don't really care that Schiller fired Williams. That's her affair. People are unfairly discharged by employers every day. If Williams was wrongfully dismissed (he isn't claiming that he was), he can sue, and win a substantial amount of money - maybe as much as Fox News is now paying him.

Schiller is either a typical progressive, and unable to tell the difference betweeen fact and fiction, or she is trying to cover for a stupid human resources action - or both.

Here's what she told her colleagues:

Dear AREPS,

Thank you for all of your varying feedback on the Juan Williams situation. Let me offer some further clarification about why we terminated his contract early.

First, a critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.

In fact, NPR "reporters" like Nina Totenberg make personal, partisan remarks all the time. But their comments reflect a liberal point of view, so they're in no danger of losing their job.

Second, this isn't the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan's public comments. Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal.

Translation: "Juan Williams isn't as far left as we'd like in his personal views."

Third, these specific comments (and others made in the past), are inconsistent with NPR's ethics code, which applies to all journalists (including contracted analysts):

"In appearing on TV or other media... NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows... that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis."

More fundamentally, "In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist."

Unfortunately, Juan's comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so.

The truth is that Juan's appearance on Fox is what violated NPR "standards." We weren't offended by the substance of his comments. Were you? Like Williams, most Americans take special notice when a visibly-Muslim person boards their plane.

We're profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week. Juan's comments were made Monday night and we did not feel it would be responsible to delay this action.

This was a tough decision and we appreciate your support.

Thanks,

Vivian Schiller
President & CEO, NPR

So Ms Schiller is really upset that a lot of us will no longer donate to NPR. Now that the intolerant, progressive standards of National Public Radio have been exposed, momentum is building to withdraw all public funding from the organization.

We're sure NPR will go the way of Air America. Good riddance.

The last, best hope

November is coming:

Obama's Medicare Czar can't take the heat

Human Events editor Jason Mattera attempts to question Dr. Donald Berwick in the clip below.

Why would Mattera care about Berwick? Because President Barack Obama recently appointed him to an incredibly powerful position as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - ground zero for ObamaCare. Congress had no opportunity to question Berwick's appointment; Obama simply appointed him to a new post as Medicare/Medicaid Czar, with a budget bigger than the Pentagon.

According to a Washington Examiner report, Berwick is a key figure in Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), an international organization that in recent years has been an aggressive and dishonest critic of Israel. The PHR web site offers a press release referring to Berwick as "a board member."

With transparency like this, no wonder Democrats are about to lose both houses of Congress. It will be interesting to see what evidence of further corruption the Obama impeachment hearings produce.

Obama cedes part of Arizona to Mexico

The reconquista has begun. And it's being encouraged and enabled by the Obama Regime's weakness and inaction.

Arizona recently passed a law to protect US citizens from the devastating flood of illegal aliens and illegal alien criminals overwhelming their state. The Obama Regime's reaction? Sue the State of Arizona into submission. We still don't know whether or not President Obama, Attorney General Holder or Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napalitano - all critics of the law - have even read the legislation they detest so strongly.

And now the Federal government has actually closed a large area of land in Arizona to Americans. Why? Because there are too many dangerous, heavily-armed illegal aliens occupying the area. It would be ridiculous if it weren't an early warning sign of the disintegration of the United States of America.



What's your take? Is there anything the US Federal Government can or should do about the border chaos? And what about the State of Arizona? Is there a role for the state to play?