is Boeing Company pissing away our tax dollars on their failed SBI net border security?
this how Boeing sees thier work in Michigan..........
thay already dropped the ball on the Southern border.
Boeing Delivers Security Capabilities to US Customs and Border Protection
DETROIT, June 3, 2010 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] has finished installing 10 remote video surveillance systems in the U.S. Border Patrol's Detroit Sector, completing the company's work on all available sites in the Northern Border Project. The systems, delivered to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), will enhance border surveillance capabilities along 37 miles of the St. Clair River -- the border between Michigan and Ontario.
The Northern Border Project also includes five similar systems Boeing delivered to the Buffalo (N.Y.) Sector. The Buffalo Sector deployment covers 15 miles of the Upper Niagara River.
"These systems will provide immediate tools for border surveillance that will also help enhance agent safety," said Tim Peters, Boeing vice president of Global Security Systems. "We are proud to support Customs and Border Protection in deploying next-generation border security capabilities."
For each deployment, CBP provided the systems' towers, cameras and sensors, while Boeing was responsible for installation and connection to sector headquarters.
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $34 billion business with 68,000 employees worldwide.
president, american airlines.boeing, border security
Thursday, June 17, 2010
another disappointment from Obama, looking for his 1200 troops..
another disappointment from Obama, looking for his 1200 troops..
has anyone seen the 1200 National Guard troops he promised Arizona?
He announced this 2 weeks ago after meeting with the Governor.
has anyone seen the 1200 National Guard troops he promised Arizona?
He announced this 2 weeks ago after meeting with the Governor.
Arizona Governor Brewer asks for donations for border security
Arizona Governor Brewer asks for donations for border security
PHOENIX - Governor Jan Brewer condemned what she says is the federal government's failure to secure our border and announced the unveiling of www.keepazsafe.com, a website created to collect money from those wishing to donate to the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund.
http://www.keepazsafe.com
http://www.kvoa.com/news/governor-brewer-asks-for-donations-for-border-security/
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
PHOENIX - Governor Jan Brewer condemned what she says is the federal government's failure to secure our border and announced the unveiling of www.keepazsafe.com, a website created to collect money from those wishing to donate to the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund.
http://www.keepazsafe.com
http://www.kvoa.com/news/governor-brewer-asks-for-donations-for-border-security/
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling in Brazil ?
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling in Brazil
You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.
This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.
see the orginal articles from the Wall street Journal
You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.
The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.
This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.
see the orginal articles from the Wall street Journal
ICE to offer offer fresh carrots and bingo nights to illegals ?
ICE to offer offer fresh carrots and bingo nights to illegals ?
U.S. mulls less jail-like immigrant facilities
SAN ANTONIO - In an agreement U.S. immigration officials hope will begin to reshape the entire 30,000-bed detention system, some asylum-seekers and immigrants awaiting deportation proceedings could soon be held in facilities where they can wear their own clothes, participate in movie and bingo nights, eat continental breakfasts, and celebrate holidays with visiting family members.
It could end confinement in prison-like facilities - complete with razor wire, jail-style uniforms,
armed guards and partitions that prevent physical contact with loved ones - for those who
have never been convicted of a crime and are not considered a threat.
Corrections Corporation of America, the largest contractor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has reached a preliminary agreement to soften confinement, free of charge, at nine immigrant facilities
covering more than 7,100 beds - a deal that ICE officials see as a precursor to changes elsewhere.
Overall, the facilities are expected to be less prison-like, offering freer movement for detainees, fewer pat downs and better access to legal resources. The agreement calls for fresh vegetables and access
to self-serve beverages along with cooking and exercise classes, according to a list released by ICE.
CCA will soften "the look for the facility with hanging plants, flower baskets, new paint colors, different bedding and furniture" and allow lengthy visits from friends and family who can provide outside packages
or food for special celebrations under changes to be made over the next six months.
ICE Director John Morton announced last year that the agency would make detention facilities less prison-like because immigrant detainees are being held on civil immigration charges,
not criminal offenses, though it was unclear at the time what changes would be made. The agency has long maintained that detention is not a punishment and that it ensures the immigrants show up for hearings. Nonetheless, it has relied heavily on contract facilities built to house criminals.
Negotiations continue with the remainder of the nearly 300 facilities under contract with ICE, mostly facilities owned by state and local governments, but "it's our goal to provide these types of reforms with all the facilities that ICE contracts with," said ICE spokesman Brian Hale.
ICE wants to create a less restrictive environment for those who are low-risk and not criminals, but those with criminal histories or who are otherwise a danger will remain in prison-like settings, he said.
New systemwide detention standards are still being drafted, but the agreement with CCA signals the less-restrictive modifications the agency wants for many detainees.
Union leaders representing guards object to the new plans, saying they're dangerous.
"It's absolutely insane, the changes they're making," said Chris Crane, president of AFGE Council 118/ICE, the union that represents 7,000 ICE officers but not the contractors.
"It just makes for an absolutely unsafe environment, not only for the detainees, but for the officers."
He contends that many detainees could be drug dealers or gang members - even if they haven't been convicted.
A 2009 review by The Associated Press of everyone in custody nationwide on a single night found that nearly three-fifths of detainees had no criminal convictions, even for minor offenses such as trespassing. Many are held only a few nights before being deported, while others - particularly those seeking asylum from persecution in their home countries -
an stay in custody for months or years while their cases are decided by an overburdened immigration court system.
Nearly 10,200 foreigners were granted asylum after going through immigration courts in fiscal year 2009.
But Crane said that doesn't mean detainees aren't criminals or gang members since local prosecutors, lacking resources, sometimes just dump "criminal aliens" into ICE custody.
"Does that mean you can't treat people humanely? Absolutely not," he said. "But we need to talk about the circumstances that these detainees were put in custody."
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates tougher immigration enforcement, said plans to soften the look of facilities, particularly those that house families,
are appropriate. But he's concerned the changes, like cooking and exercise classes, go too far.
"From this memo, it sounds like they're turning them into Club Med," Mehlman said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, raised similar concerns in a letter to ICE officials last week, saying softening the facilities - even for low-risk detainees - creates a "moral hazard."
Immigrant advocates object to the plans, too, but for another reason: they don't go far enough.
"They're really coming up with very minimal changes," said Andrea Black of the Detention Watch Network.
Most of the low-risk detainees who might get softened facilities shouldn't be detained at all, especially when less expensive electronic monitoring is available, she said.
"We're still talking about people being in detention for years on end," said Black. "This is their response? To offer fresh carrots and bingo nights?"
http://www.kvoa.com/news/us-mulls-less-jail-like-immigrant-facilities1/
U.S. mulls less jail-like immigrant facilities
SAN ANTONIO - In an agreement U.S. immigration officials hope will begin to reshape the entire 30,000-bed detention system, some asylum-seekers and immigrants awaiting deportation proceedings could soon be held in facilities where they can wear their own clothes, participate in movie and bingo nights, eat continental breakfasts, and celebrate holidays with visiting family members.
It could end confinement in prison-like facilities - complete with razor wire, jail-style uniforms,
armed guards and partitions that prevent physical contact with loved ones - for those who
have never been convicted of a crime and are not considered a threat.
Corrections Corporation of America, the largest contractor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has reached a preliminary agreement to soften confinement, free of charge, at nine immigrant facilities
covering more than 7,100 beds - a deal that ICE officials see as a precursor to changes elsewhere.
Overall, the facilities are expected to be less prison-like, offering freer movement for detainees, fewer pat downs and better access to legal resources. The agreement calls for fresh vegetables and access
to self-serve beverages along with cooking and exercise classes, according to a list released by ICE.
CCA will soften "the look for the facility with hanging plants, flower baskets, new paint colors, different bedding and furniture" and allow lengthy visits from friends and family who can provide outside packages
or food for special celebrations under changes to be made over the next six months.
ICE Director John Morton announced last year that the agency would make detention facilities less prison-like because immigrant detainees are being held on civil immigration charges,
not criminal offenses, though it was unclear at the time what changes would be made. The agency has long maintained that detention is not a punishment and that it ensures the immigrants show up for hearings. Nonetheless, it has relied heavily on contract facilities built to house criminals.
Negotiations continue with the remainder of the nearly 300 facilities under contract with ICE, mostly facilities owned by state and local governments, but "it's our goal to provide these types of reforms with all the facilities that ICE contracts with," said ICE spokesman Brian Hale.
ICE wants to create a less restrictive environment for those who are low-risk and not criminals, but those with criminal histories or who are otherwise a danger will remain in prison-like settings, he said.
New systemwide detention standards are still being drafted, but the agreement with CCA signals the less-restrictive modifications the agency wants for many detainees.
Union leaders representing guards object to the new plans, saying they're dangerous.
"It's absolutely insane, the changes they're making," said Chris Crane, president of AFGE Council 118/ICE, the union that represents 7,000 ICE officers but not the contractors.
"It just makes for an absolutely unsafe environment, not only for the detainees, but for the officers."
He contends that many detainees could be drug dealers or gang members - even if they haven't been convicted.
A 2009 review by The Associated Press of everyone in custody nationwide on a single night found that nearly three-fifths of detainees had no criminal convictions, even for minor offenses such as trespassing. Many are held only a few nights before being deported, while others - particularly those seeking asylum from persecution in their home countries -
an stay in custody for months or years while their cases are decided by an overburdened immigration court system.
Nearly 10,200 foreigners were granted asylum after going through immigration courts in fiscal year 2009.
But Crane said that doesn't mean detainees aren't criminals or gang members since local prosecutors, lacking resources, sometimes just dump "criminal aliens" into ICE custody.
"Does that mean you can't treat people humanely? Absolutely not," he said. "But we need to talk about the circumstances that these detainees were put in custody."
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates tougher immigration enforcement, said plans to soften the look of facilities, particularly those that house families,
are appropriate. But he's concerned the changes, like cooking and exercise classes, go too far.
"From this memo, it sounds like they're turning them into Club Med," Mehlman said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, raised similar concerns in a letter to ICE officials last week, saying softening the facilities - even for low-risk detainees - creates a "moral hazard."
Immigrant advocates object to the plans, too, but for another reason: they don't go far enough.
"They're really coming up with very minimal changes," said Andrea Black of the Detention Watch Network.
Most of the low-risk detainees who might get softened facilities shouldn't be detained at all, especially when less expensive electronic monitoring is available, she said.
"We're still talking about people being in detention for years on end," said Black. "This is their response? To offer fresh carrots and bingo nights?"
http://www.kvoa.com/news/us-mulls-less-jail-like-immigrant-facilities1/
OBAMA VS. PRESS FREEDOM by Dick Morris
OBAMA VS. PRESS FREEDOM
By DICK MORRIS
Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of Obama's Federal Trade Commission, is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations, a first step toward government control of the media. In our book, 2010: Take Back America -- A Battle Plan, we reported that he had commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news organizations. Among the measures under consideration are special tax treatment, exemption from antitrust laws and changes in copyright laws.
Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce. A May 24 working paper on "reinventing" the media proposes that the government impose fees on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to news websites or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops and Kindles. Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.
While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for the taxes, calling them "a terrible idea," his comments appear to be related only to the levies proposed in the working paper. Nobody is commenting on the other part of his proposal -- a subsidy for news organizations.
By now, the Obama MO should be clear to all. As he has done with the banks, AIG and the car companies, he extends his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with regulations. Should the government follow through on Leibowitz's ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations, it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed government advertising on favored periodicals.
Is it too difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news organizations, only to question -- as former White House communications director Anita Dunn did -- whether or not Fox News is a news organization or an "arm of the Republican Party"? We can see a future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.
Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in the business must have it. Otherwise, the competitive advantage for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to overcome.
In all the attention that has been given to the idea of an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment -- trial balloons that would obviously be shot down -- very little attention has been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal -- the subsidy of news organizations.
But The Wall Street Journal reported six months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine "whether the government should aid struggling news organizations which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends their centuries-old business model." Among the steps under consideration are changing "the way the industry is regulated, from making news-gathering companies exempt from antitrust laws to granting them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws."
These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger government oversight and control.
Look at how radio stations squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC. We can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to antagonize the hand that feeds them.
The Leibowitz study, and the subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
By DICK MORRIS
Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of Obama's Federal Trade Commission, is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations, a first step toward government control of the media. In our book, 2010: Take Back America -- A Battle Plan, we reported that he had commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news organizations. Among the measures under consideration are special tax treatment, exemption from antitrust laws and changes in copyright laws.
Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce. A May 24 working paper on "reinventing" the media proposes that the government impose fees on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to news websites or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops and Kindles. Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.
While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for the taxes, calling them "a terrible idea," his comments appear to be related only to the levies proposed in the working paper. Nobody is commenting on the other part of his proposal -- a subsidy for news organizations.
By now, the Obama MO should be clear to all. As he has done with the banks, AIG and the car companies, he extends his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with regulations. Should the government follow through on Leibowitz's ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations, it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed government advertising on favored periodicals.
Is it too difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news organizations, only to question -- as former White House communications director Anita Dunn did -- whether or not Fox News is a news organization or an "arm of the Republican Party"? We can see a future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.
Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in the business must have it. Otherwise, the competitive advantage for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to overcome.
In all the attention that has been given to the idea of an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment -- trial balloons that would obviously be shot down -- very little attention has been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal -- the subsidy of news organizations.
But The Wall Street Journal reported six months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine "whether the government should aid struggling news organizations which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends their centuries-old business model." Among the steps under consideration are changing "the way the industry is regulated, from making news-gathering companies exempt from antitrust laws to granting them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws."
These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger government oversight and control.
Look at how radio stations squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC. We can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to antagonize the hand that feeds them.
The Leibowitz study, and the subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)