A liberal mind is impervious to responsibility

"Obama denies responsibility" is an accurate title for this article, but it is so trite! Saying Obama denies responsibility has about as much news content as "dog bites man"  —  both happen every day, and are not newsworthy.

The latest attempt by Obama to shift blame to Bush, however, takes this blame game up a notch.  Obama officials last week pointed to rising costs under the Bush administration to suggest that the $820,000 Vegas conference could have been avoided — if only the Bush-era  General Services Administration (GSA) had acted. In other words, out-of-control spending is still Bush's purview. 

Obama's creative adaptation of Truman's dictum.

Why do we need Obama occupying the oval office? I mean, we have teleprompters and Carey or another spokesperson can say "It's Bush's fault". Where's the news content? If the administration has nothing new to report, they could at least sell the airtime and pay down our crushing debt, which increased from about 60% GDP when Obama took office to over 100% GDP in a mere three years.

Blaming Bush for the Vegas bash was too much for the former head of the GSA, Lurita Doan, blasted the Obama administration Monday for blaming his predecessor over the lavish Las Vegas. Doan, headed the agency under then-President George W. Bush until her resignation in 2008, told Fox News that President Obama's team is trying to "divert attention" from its own scandal. 

Harry Truman had a famous dictum as a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here". What has Obama taken responsibility for? Whenever economy perks up a little, Obama takes credit for the "right direction", but when the news are bad, it's "we didn't realized how bad it was", which translates as "it's all Bush's fault" from Obama-speak. 

Who still believes this buffoon? There are some true believers. Van Jones, Obama's former "green czar", recently opined that "even if Obama came out as gay he would not lose the black vote". Not much concern with merit there. What about the white voters? They seem to be still enamored with Obama's race. How else do you explain the enthusiasm and the dominance of white twenty-somethings in Chicago, IL in the photo below? They still believe. Based in what? That's a wrong question. They believe in who, they have bough the personal story. I can understand how Obama's victory in 2008 was a result of  the help of mass media, which helped Obama to avoid difficult questions, and he was not properly vetted. I thought Obama's background as a socialist was enough to suggest his dreams were empty rhetoric about hope. Hope triumphed over historical experience. By 2012 Obama's agenda has failed all around, so what's the excuse of placing hope above experience now? 

Chicago office of Obama 2012 reelection campaign
 — young, white and clueless.

Here's how I feel about such gullible sheep: they are ignoramuses and hypocrites who are generous with other people's money. Obama's policies have fleeced our country — he has added more debt than ... anyone in the history of civilization. The ignorant youth do not know history, and do not even understand the contemporary politics. Who's going to pay for all these goodies? Other people who make money. That makes these supporters hypocrites. They are ignorant of the fact that a large portion of this debt will fall on their shoulders in the form of higher taxes and Social Security payments.

Have they read "Fleeced" by Dick Morris?

According to MSNBC, young “voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent — the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976.” How's that "hopey, changey" thing working out for them?

Less than 50% of the people 16-24 years old are currently employed - a record low. The unemployment among the black youth is almost twice the rate of whites, so Obama has not even had a positive impact on his favorite demographic. The official unemployment, of course, underestimates the reality, but is useful as a relative measure. According to these official data below, the average rate of youth unemployment during Obama's term has been nearly double that of Bush's entire two terms.

Forgive them, oh Lord, for they know not for whom they vote.

It's ironic that Obama's young supporters are among the people who're doubly "fleeced" by his policies  — presently through the loss of employment opportunities and in the future through higher taxes to cover the debt Obama incurred on their behalf. 

There is a saying that "a liberal mind is impervious to experience". In my humble opinion to vote for Obama in 2008 could be excused by ignorance (a triumph of hope over experience), but to vote for him in 2012 is simply irresponsible. My upgrade of the above dictum is: "a liberal mind is impervious to responsibility" - that's why the seek to "spread it around".

Social justice, according to DOJ

Zimmerman family challenged the Attorney General Eric Holder on New Black Panther Party (NBPP).  One of the family members wrote in an open letter to the Holder:

I am writing you to ask you why, when the law of the land is crystal clear, is your office not arresting the New Black Panthers for hate crimes?

The Zimmerman family is in hiding because of the threats that have been made against us, yet the DOJ has maintained an eerie silence on this matter. These threats are very public. If you haven’t been paying attention just do a Google search and you will find plenty. Since when can a group of people in the United States put a bounty on someone’s head, circulate Wanted posters publicly, and still be walking the streets?

The letter concludes that the lack of interest in this matter Eric Holder and the DOJ is ‘based solely on your race’.

A black leader who actually has integrity, Allen West, has called this bounty a hate crime, and urged the Justice Department to prosecute the NBPP for the bounty. The Department of Justice, however, said it had "no comment" on the on  the bounty on George Zimmerman.

Spike Lee had originally tweeted an incorrect phone number for George Zimmerman, causing an elderly couple to flee their house in fear of their lives. Then, he apologizes for getting the old couple in trouble, and retweeted the correct address for Zimmerman. The couple is still fearing to go back to their house and is asking for Spike Lee to issue a formal apology to ensure their safety.

Why is Spike Lee not charged with reckless endangerment, and a hate crime?

The irony is that Zimmerman can justifiably claim claim that Spike Lee, Black Panthers, and the NBC, which admitted to putting a falsified audio tape on the 911 call on air, are all potentially responsible for any harm that could come to Zimmerman or his family. What about a fair trial? Considering the bias projected by mass media's representation of George Zimmerman, he would need to go to Mars to get a jury which is not biased one way or another in this case.

Holder has no shame and is unlikely to do the right thing -- to execute his duties as Attorney General without regard to race, by protecting the "due process", and ensuring the safety of Zimmerman's family. Hopefully, this case will show very clearly the the reality of the so-called "social justice" -- it is a euphemism used by a bunch of racists in power to justify their selective application of laws.

US economy: lies, damn lies and statistics

The unemployment report released last Friday showed a nominal decrease of unemployment from 8.3% to 8.2%. However, the mere 120,000 jobs created created broke the pattern of robust job creation during the last two months that was boosting Obama's reelection chances. The economists were expecting over 200,000 new jobs.  The real numbers reflect a worse reality - in March, the number of unemployed dropped by 133,000, but the overall labor force declined by 164,000. That means the economy shed a total of 31,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the government reports lower unemployment.

There's a saying about the malleability of statistics: there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". Only by discounting a large number of discouraged job-seekers can the government report a statistical reduction of unemployment, in stead of an actual reduction of employment.

The labor non-participation has reached a record 88 million. The issue of how this rate the unemployment rate is officially calculated is becoming a part of the political discourse. A Republican congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.

For example, the most recent unemployment rate released on Friday, at 8.2% unemployment, is the so-called U-3 rate calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). It also calculates more inclusive measures U-5 and U-6. The more realistic U-5 rate of 9.6% it includes the “total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force."

Thus, the measure proposed by Representative Hunter would not require any additional numbers to be calculated; it would simply elevate the statistic that the BLS already calculates each month. That would add a lot of realism to the discussion, and not allow the statistical unemployment rate to decrease, while the number of actual employed people is falling.

The lack of realism in official statistics is obscuring not clarifying the direction of the economy. The Dow ended below 13,000 and logged its fourth straight daily loss. One of the reasons may be that during the weekend the traders had a chance to  reevaluation the latest unemployment report, which was released last Friday. The stocks tumbled heavily at the open, clawed their way up to recover some ground, then finished near their lows by the end of the day.

Yes, you did, Barry.

The job gains of the last couple of months were helped by unseasonably warm weather, and may have cannibalized job gains of the spring. It has given an entirely unrealistic perception of an accelerating recovery.

Barack Obama has been the undertaker of this economy, but he refuses to accept any responsibility. It's time for him to ask: "Did I do that?" ask Steve Urkel from TV show Family Matters used to do after causing some mishap. He won't. So, I've asked and will now answer:

"Yes, he did."

Egalitarian fraud

The Democrats often complain that requiring IDs for voting is an intolerable burden, and disproportionately affects minorities.

The conservative activist James O’Keefe decided to demonstrate to the Attorney General Eric Holder, just why he should be concerned about lack of voter ID laws – by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s ballot. Literally.

In a shocking new video from Project Veritas a man (picture below) voted on Eric Holder's behalf.

Is that you, Eric?
Didn't recognize you with the sunglasses.

Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case. When a white bearded dude came to vote in the primary on April 3rd and claimed to be Holder and used his address, the poll worker didn't hesitate and promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.

Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, and they have registered celebrities like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota. Now - Washington DC. The voting there lies in a federal jurisdictional area. Will the federal government take up the challenge?

Probably not. Looking incompetent doesn't seem to bother DOJ or the Obama administration enough to overcome their love for "social justice".

Social justice in the USA

There is a confluence of the arts with real events, which illuminates the some serious challenges for the society in the USA. The case of Trayvon Martin has captured the airwaves, and the mass media has rushed to judgement to label the man that shot him, George Zimmerman a bigot and a murderer, in contradiction to his claim to self defense and without deference to the several ongoing investigations, including one by the FBI.

NBC news had to apologize for editing George Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call that made him appear to be racially profiling Trayvon. ABC initially reported no injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head, until it stopped covering his head with its logo in the video, and reported that enhancement of the video of Zimmerman in police station did show injuries. In other words, ABC also tried to obfuscate the issue.

The main culprit in the mass media is the prime-time show host on MSNBC, Al Sharpton, who called for "occupation" of Sanford, FL. He demanded immediate arrest of Zimmerman and has led rallies, blurring the line between activism and journalism.

Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton - the usual suspects.

President Obama has issued a call for "soul searching" in relation to Trayvon case. Why did he single out this case, and what effect did it have?

According to Obama the answer to the first questions is: "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". As for the effect of  a president getting involved, in addition to race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- it has elevated the importance of an issue that was already national news, and being prejudged by the mass media.

A comedy, “Neighborhood Watch” by 20th Century Fox intended for release in early summer is in unexpected trouble, because of it's name. The Zimmerman has not even been charged, but the name "Neighborhood watch" is already seen as sullied!

Is that where we are as a society? Not only will we rush to judgement, we will destroy the legitimacy of neighborhood watchmen?! That would be bad enough, it it was not for the racial issue.

The only evidence of racial profiling in this case is the lie put forward by the NBC. Obama's outspoken concern with the possible racial profiling in the Trayvon case, flies in the face of his silence in the recent black-on-white hate crimes? Why did the mass media and the president not speak out against a the crime against a white kid who was dosed with gasoline and set on fire on his own porch, while his attackers yelled: "You get what you deserve, white boy"?

Why the silence on the recent attack of black teenagers on a white cabbie and his white passenger in Philladelphia? The coverage of the mob attack of seven black teens on a white teenager just blocks from Independence Hall, failed to mention the races. The white teenager went to the hospital, while Fox showed a a purposefully grainy video of the event, and other news organization failed to mention it at all.

Then there's an attack by a black an Atlanta street gang on a Hispanic "faggot" videotaped by the perpetrators themselves? Will this brutal attack be prosecuted as a hate crime?

Social justice is not blind.

That's social justice for you. There are favored groups, and less favored groups. If you're "white" or a "faggot" an assault on you is not as important an issue as an assault on blacks - a group favored by President Obama by default, as his previous jump to conclusion regarding professor Gates showed.

Obama is a racist, so his reaction is predictable, we just have to deal with it. That means not giving up, but the opposite. We need to fight the bigoted pre-judgement in Zimmerman's case, and not allow the concept of "Neighborhood watch" to be destroyed by race-baiters, even if they occupy the highest office. If the country falls prey to the siren song of "social justice" you can kiss regular justice good-bye.

Pussy Riot anathema

After the performance of the punk rock group Pussy Riot in Moscow's rebuilt cathedral of Christ the Savior, three of nine band members were arrested: Maria Alekhina and Nadejda Tolokonnikova on March 4th, and Catherine Samutzevich - on March 15th. They have been charged with "hooliganism". The Pussy Riot band performed in masks, but the uncertainty will not stop the authorities from making an example. The women - two of whom have small children at home face up to seven years in prison.

Russian protester in front of the Ministry of Justice.

After the arrest of three of the performers, I wrote about the political nature of this performance and its persecution: Putin is Puttin' an end to the Pussy Riot. Amnesty International has called them prisoners of conscience and demanded their release:

Amnesty International calls for the immediate and unconditional release of three young women arrested by the Russian authorities as members of the punk group ‘Pussy Riot’ who staged a protest song in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral on 21 February.

The phrase "immediate and unconditional" to the Russian ear evokes the calls for surrender of German armed forces at the end of WWII. In other words, Amnesty International (AI) is provocatively calling for Russian capitulation. Sadly, this call does not improve the chances of the jailed women.

The band members of Pussy Riot explained that the goal of "punk service" was not desecration of a church, but a protest against the position of Patriarch Kirill, who allowed the "Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) to become a tool in the dirty electoral intrigues".

Not surprisingly, Patriarch Kirill recently condemned calls for leniency for the "punk service" in Moscow's main cathedral. The Russian punk band was doing devil's work, said the saintly leader of the ROC.

In its call for release of jailed Pussy Riot members, AI noted that the band has left the church peacefully shortly after being asked, and caused no damage. Furthermore, the charges against the women mention the anti-Putin message of their performance.

Patriarch Kirill's calls for harshness in prosecution of Pussy Riot may appear justified by the anti-religious message of the "punk service". The band's message was actually anti-clerical. I was stunned to find that Patriarch Kirill, the leader of the ROC, has openly supported Putin's candidacy for the reelection! Apparently the only separation of church and state he has heard about happened during the Soviet times, and loss of state patronage was a real challenge for the Church. It's much better to be helping the rulers to control the masses, than to oppose the powerful, even if they are ex-KGB.

Patriarch Kirill has become embroiled in a series of scandals. At the end of the March a story broke in mass media in Russia around an apartment belonging to the Patriarch, where a relative of his lives. The charge is that this lady attempted to steal her neighbor's apartment through a lawsuit alleging damage to the Patriarch's library from the renovations in the neighbor's flat. The Patriarch faced such a firestorm that he could only promise, as he did to donate the money to charity. He has recently received 20 million rubles, from his neighbor whose son was forced to sell the apartment to pay these damages.

A number of members of Russian parliament have spoken about organized "hounding" of the Patriarch, which has "general-European character". Some called criticism of the Patriarch a part of Russo-phobic, and anti-christian campaign by the opposition and the "so-called libertarians".

It seems that the Patriarch is not hurting for money. Recently, another row was caused by a touch-up of a online photo, which showed Patriarch Kirill wearing a Breguet watch valued at 28-36 thousand dollars. The bloggers noticed the undoctored the reflection of this very expensive watch. The ROC has apologized for doctoring the photo. 

Watch this.
The reflection of the watch (green outline) from Patriarch's left hand
revealed when the pricey watch (red outline) was doctored away. 

Do you know what time it is Patriarch Kirill? Check your 30-grand watch, and remember Judah's 30 pieces of silver. Did you get some earthy benefits for siding with the latest czar - Putin - and insisting on jail time for a few young women, some some with small children for opposing your intervention in politics?

The wheel has come full circle. The Church which Communists despised and looted is back in favor with the government. The ironies are many, but the most cynical one is that the main Moscow cathedral  where the Pussy Riot performed its sacrilegious service is a rebuilt replica - the original was blown up by the Bolsheviks in 1931 - some ROC officials had the audacity to compare the Bolsheviks favorably with the unsanctioned show, which protested Patriarch's endorsement of reelection of ex-KGB colonel.

Obama's reelection magic

Obama's reelection chances rest on creating some straw men to deny responsibility for the status of the economy and the increased divisions in society his "post-racial" election was supposed to cure. Obama is using Houdini method of creating grand illusions with misdirection, but it's hard to deny responsibility on that scale.

Obama in wonderland (teleprompters included).

Myth: Congress is a "Do Nothing" Congress, because of the intransigence of the Republicans.
Reality: Congressman Paul Ryan's budget includes some common sense ideas for slowing the growth of government. These proposals are far from the caricature of it painted by the Obama administration, which is "so far to the right," said Obama , "that it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal."

Under Ryan's plan, the federal government would be 46% bigger in real terms than it was in 2000, which was President Clinton's last year in office, according to analysis of budget data by Investors Business Daily.

Ryan's plan would  simplify the tax code and widen the base by replacing the current behemoth code with just two marginal tax brackets — 10% and 25%, while eliminating loopholes. Democrats' objections to Ryan's tax reform plan is that it "showers money on the rich" by lowering the top rate to 25%.

Myth The Supreme Justices nominated by Republicans are judicial activists who're going to overturn the wondrous Obamacare.
Reality: Obama administration lawyers failed to provide a constitutional basis for the law, in particular to show any limitation for the intended interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- that economic activity (or even inactivity) affects interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to Federal regulation. In fact, after Obama fired the preemptive strike at the justices of the Supreme Court, calling them "unelected" in a blatant effort to delegitimize their likely rule against his signature domestic reform.

What was Obama thinking? Surely he knew the blatant assault on judicial purview could now go unanswered. Joseph Curl of Washington Times is probably correct: Obama knows the consequence of picking a fight - he is betting that his key to victory is to get his base on engage in a confrontation. The fact that it is ultimately a lost cause does not trouble Obama or his minions. It reminds me of Napoleon's famous dictum: "The important thing is to engage the enemy -- the proper strategy will present itself".

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit directly responded to the president's comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law by asking the DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, about the judicial review. She said, of course, DOJ recognizes it's legitimacy and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago.

One of the tree appellate judges then demanded a "three page single spaced letter" directly from Eric Holder on this subject. Holder admitted his acceptance of judicial review the next day, and sent the letter to the appellate court on Thursday. 

Why would Obama administration want the embarrassment of being taken to task like this? The only logical answers is a calculation to engage on an emotionally charged subject. We will hear a lot about the poor and the uninsured who are driven to desperation by Republican defence of the rich men's greed.

Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Myth: Economic difficulties are due to external factors according to Joe Biden, like the financial crisis in the Eurozone, or oil price increase due to the "Arab spring" and the tsunami in Japan.

Reality: The Obama administration has created more onerous regulations than any other. They have created a certainty of increased costs to hiring with Obamacare, and manufacture with cap-and-trade. They have shut down a lot of oil exploration in the Mexican gulf, and rejected the Keystone pipeline from Canada.    They invested recklessly in companies like Solyndra, while neglecting traditional resources. Increasing regulation, cost of hiring and cost of energy has lead to a slow economic recovery. If the Obama administration doesn't understand this basic reality they are either lying or utterly incompetent.

Myth: Republicans plan to poison the waters, and the kids. That's the essence much what Obama said.

Reality: The EPA regulations, which Obama administration recently enacted, are a way of enforcing tax-and-trade without Congressional approval. Rejection of such expensive, holier-than-thou hyper-environmentalism does not imply a desire to poison the environment or the kids. 

Myth: The economy is getting better. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.2% in March.
Reality: The rate dropped for one simple reason: the number of people not in the labor force is back to all time high: 87,897,000.

The economy added a mere 120,000 jobs according to one survey, well below the expectations of up to 200,000. So, why did the unemployment drop? Washington Post reveals the real numbers: in March, the number of unemployed dropped by 133,000, but so did the number of people employed — by 31,000. That indicates that those people didn’t necessarily find new jobs, since the overall labor force declined by 164,000. So, the economy is still bleeding jobs, and they cite meaningless and, therefore, bogus statistics about reduction in the unemployment!

Obama can only run on distortions and rhetoric, and you can't underestimate how low he is willing to go to create an illusion of competence that lasts long enough to get him reelected. The man has no shame. Rush Limbaugh correctly called him a thug.

Obama disses the Judicial branch

The U.S. Supreme Court has completed its hearings on Obamacare last week. "We the people" will find out about the results in June, but the judges already know which side is in the majority.

The hearing exposed Obamacare as an example of unlimited and unconstitutional power-grab by the executive branch of government. The swing vote --  justice Kennedy -- appears to have swung against that law, when the government lawyer failed to provide a limit to this interpretation of the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The clause, which allows the Fed to control trade between states and with other countries, has been used by the administration to justify this intrusion. Your heathcare impacts interstate commerce, get it? By that measure any human activity impacts interstate commerce, so where's the limit? The administration failed to provide one.

We the people are so over this ... Constitution.

Obama charged that the "unelected"Supreme Court could not and should not take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law, saying:

Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

Obama has taken an unprecedented step of warning the U.S. Supreme Court not to overturn his law. Not only that, he's charging the Justices with ... not being elected. That is the precisely the means for ensuring impartiality of justices chosen by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the Constitution. Surely a constitutional lawyer like Obama is aware of this fact. Obama's bemoaning the Constitution as a potential impediment to his designs is understandable. It's one thing to think it, and another to actually say this foolishness.

My liberal friends used to tell me that "Obama is the smartest person in the room", regardless of other occupants. Really? He seems really obtuse to me. Does he not realize how consistent the narrative of the overreach of his administration has been?

Given Obama's ridiculous outburst, some believe that Obama has been tipped off on the decision by the Supreme Court on health law. It should not matter. It appears that some of Obama's advisers think that running against the U.S. Supreme Court is a winning strategy for reelection. After all he's already running against the unpopular Congress. What a great narrative for Obama's reelection: "Although last three and a half years have stunk, you should vote t o reelect me, because the problems were the fault of the other two branches of government."

According to Obama's revisionist history his signature healthcare law was passed by a strong majority in Congress?! This is news. I thought it was the reluctance of congress that required the Cornhusker kickback and the Alabama purchase for the passage of Obamacare. The same type of sweetener was required for other items on Obama's ideological agenda.

Obama's agenda required some incentives.

Obama also noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example. Determination of Constitutionality is a form of "judicial activism". According to Obama's logic the Court should be a mere rubber stamp since its function of verifying the constitutionality of laws is merely perfunctory.

Obama desperately wants his presidency to be historically consequential. It is - as an example of everything that is wrong with liberal ideology, and the threat its autocratic approach poses to our Constitution.

EPA revives cap-and-tax

Make it end. I'm talking about the insanity of the Obama administration in general and regarding energy policy and oil, in particular.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new U.S. power plants, circumventing the Obama administration to push through cap-and-trade through Congress. Why would Obama use this strategy in an election year knowing it will be strongly contested by Republicans and the industry? To ask this question is to answer it. The Obama administration wants this fight.

There is a microcosm of Obama's philosophy within this decision -- ideology trumps realism. It's a desperate move to appeal to the the political left -- environmentalists who think the country should subject itself to great financial pains associated with extremely expensive energy and gasoline for an ephemeral benefit.

That's right. I give no credibility to the fear-mongering associated with CO2. The idea that CO2 has resulted in global warming is total baloney, as the Climate Research Unit effectively admitted recently. There's no uniform warming of the planet. The Earth temperatures have been completely in accord with the Sun cycle, for as long as accurate records have been kept.

Carbon dioxide happens to be essential for plant life, and unlike oxygen is not toxic. There's also the inconvenient fact that all of use exhale CO2, just like those evil power plants. So, what's to prevent the government for taxing you for you carbon footprint? How would you like to be taxed not just for oil and gas you use, but also the air breathe?

There's no fundamental justification for CO2 tax, beside tax revenue and increased government control.

The politics of this decision appear to be simply nuts. Consider, that a similar set of regulations - the so-called cap-and-trade, more accurately described as cap-and-tax, was rejected by Congress over a year ago. Then Obama has shut down the majority of exploration in the Gulf, sending dozens of off-shore pumping platforms to China, and costing many thousands of jobs. More recently Obama has rejected the Keystone pipeline. The gasoline has nearly doubled in price since Obama took office. External factors had a lot to do with this increase, but Obama administration's antagonism to oil development has not helped.

Yes, he can (and he did).

Democrats continue to use fallacious numbers. On March 7 Obama declared: “We've got 2% of the world oil reserves; we use 20%. What that means is, as much as we're doing to increase oil production, we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices.”

The 2% number, in particular, is based on a very strict definition of proven reserves, which conveniently discounts more than half of the oil which could be economically extracted. The conclusion from Obama's description seems clear - the U.S. must be running out of oil. However, nothing is further from the truth. The known, financially lucrative reserves have actually grown -- due to improved technologies for detection that allowed identification of resources like shale oil that have become lucrative to develop consider given current prices. The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” columnist Glenn Kessler dismissed Obama’s figures as a “non sequitur”, which is exactly how I first thought of these figures, because the expected conclusion does not follow from these false statistics.

Even some Democrats from energy-intensive states have complained. "The overreaching that EPA continues to do is going to create a tremendous burden and hardship on the families and people of America," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.

No, he can't (and he didn't).

Obama once said regarding cap-and-trade: "Under my plan the energy costs will necessarily skyrocket". Is the Obama administration so obtuse as to double down with a losing hand in the debate on carbon-based fuels? They must be desperate to energize their left-wing base, despite the fact this issue is a loser with the general public. The geniuses in the Obama administration have not considered that the vacation season is around the corner. When gas approaches $5 per gallon, they will rue this short-sighted strategy.

Five dollar gasoline will certain results in an "O'bummer" summer of discontent for travelers, although nobody should be bummed too much. The pain at the pump serves a greater good. The true believers in the pie-in-the-sky alternative energy can look forward to decreased use of pricey oil in the U.S., while the rest of us can look forward to Obama's early retirement.

An errand boy and an appeaser

An errand boy and an appeaser walk into the Oval office. The errand boy is under-dressed, "I'm sorry, you can't be here unless you are wearing a tie," the Secret Service tells him. The errand boy goes to his car to find anything he can use for a tie. All he finds is a set of jumper cables, so he ties them around his neck. "This works," says the appeaser, "but we can't start anything yet, but after my election I will have the flexibility to hook you up with some 'juice'".

Actually, the meeting between Demitri Medvev, the current Russian Prime Minister, and Obama occurred in South Korea, but otherwise the description is apt. A hot mike caught Obama saying to Medvedev: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama said of incoming Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, who will replace Medvedev in May. “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev replies, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir," a reference to the next Russian President-elect Valdimir Putin.

The appeaser-in-chief meets an errand boy.

A few observations are in order. Medvedev's term as the Prime Minister won't run out until May 7th. He only served one term, and didn't even attempt to run again - it would interfere with Putin's ascendancy to the third (or fourth, if you count the last 4 years) term. Medvedev's response to Obama's comments is something that would be expected of a junior diplomat with no decision making power. Medvedev provided confirmation to the view that he's an impotent placeholder, an errand boy, in fact.

Obama bowing to Japanese emperor and
to Saudi Arabian King.

Medvedev is a joke - that's fine. Obama's comments are more significant, and disturbing. What does he mean by more "flexibility" after his potential reelection?

Consider Obama's record on missile defense. Obama's Start I treaty with Russia has betrayed US allies who wanted the defensive missiles house on their territory in Poland and the Czech republic. Even worse, this treaty amounted to a "unilateral disarmament", as John Bolton, the former ambassador to the U.N., has called this move.

What does "flexibility" mean in this context? Accommodation and appeasement. That has been Obama's strategy throughout his first term - appeasement of enemies, such as Iran, North Korea, Russia and Islamists in Egypt and elsewhere. What about friends? Obama has treated England and Israel with barely concealed contempt.

Charles Krauthammer's criticism of Obama's comments is so articulate, I'd like to quote a large part of his comments to RCP:

I think that the key word here in that exchange was Obama saying to the Russians, 'this is my last election.' It's not just that 'I have another election and I'll be occupied with other issues, let's talk about this. [...]

'This is my last election.' That's his way of saying with a nod and a wink, 'Look, you guys have a free hand because you run a dictatorship, your elections are rigged. Well, ours aren't rigged, but once I get passed my last election, I'm unleashed. I can do anything I want.
And what he's saying is, 'you know that reset I began three years ago where I completely undermined our allies in Eastern Europe. I cancelled the missile defense system and I began a process in which our supremacy in missile defenses is now negotiable, which the Republicans have never allowed to be negotiable.'

'Well, after election day, I can't speak about it now of course because it's my last election and Americans won't actually like that -- after election day, I'll be open.' 

This is a huge gaffe, if Etch-A-Sketch is a problem for Romney, this is the President himself saying, 'I'll be unleashed. I can govern hard left. I can do all this reset stuff in the future unmolested.' That's his way of telling people, 'you may have no idea what my agenda in the second term is going to be, but let me tell you, the Russians, it's going to be pretty hard left.'

Mitt Romney has jumped on the opportunity afforded by Obama's candor: "Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage. And for this president to be looking for greater flexibility, where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia, is very, very troubling, very alarming," Romney said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

So, how did Obama try to diffuse this situation? He made light of the issue, and added: "Arms control is extraordinarily complex, very technical, and the only way it gets done is if you can consult and build a strong basis of understanding both between countries as well as within countries."

Oh. It's a good thing the "Reset" button for which the State Department originally used the wrong Russian word is working out so well. Think of the cooperation U.S. has gotten from Russia concerning nuclear non-proliferation in Iran and and civil war in Syria! Actually, think of something else. Happy thoughts. La, la, la. Forget the fact that Russia is not a democracy, and its elections are rigged. Forget the fact that Putin accused Hillary Clinton of instigating and sponsoring protests in Russia. Another "reset" will sure fix this.

According to Obama's own logic, his promise to continue to appease Russia rests on the sound foundation of understanding with Russia. He is right - Russia, in the face of Putin does understand Obama - he avoids standing up for American values preferring the easy route of appeasement.

The Black House in DC

Would you like to know what "social justice" looks like? Regular justice has no color, "social justice" depends on the social status (e.g. skin color, homesexuality, etc.) of the victim and the perpetrator. According to social justice the aggressor may actually be the victim, depending on the "classes" involved.

Almost two years ago Obama has said in regard to Cambridge police detaining a black professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., who appeared to be breaking into a house:

"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played. But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 ... that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

To summarize Obama's points: specifics don't matter, race does. Cambridge police is stupid, most likely due to being racially bigoted.

Later it was revealed that the police were called by a concerned neighbor and when they realized the was no break-in, they attempted to leave the scene until professor Gates showed his real colors he screaming his lungs out about the white officers mother, so the neighbors could hear. He was warned that he was out of order, but he persisted and was eventually arrested. Where was this paragon of equanimity and justice employed? At Harvard. At an Institute for African and African American Research. Any chance he preaches his bigotry there?

So, the only person who acted rashly and stupidly was ... Obama. His jump to the conclusion that Cambridge police "acted stupidly" and his insinuation that this had to do with bigotry in law enforcement is beyond the pale. Obama had to invite the white office for a few beers to the White House to patch things up. Not that Obama apologized to the officer. He attempted to suggest his sublime thinking was simply misunderstood. Oh well, that's the danger of Obama going off the teleprompter - he's likely to say what he really believes, like "spearing the wealth around is good for everyone". Talk about a Manchurian candidate.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) under Eric Holder is notoriously unwilling to prosecute black on white crime. He even let go the two black panther racists, who were found guilty of voter intimidation.

DOJ is OK with reverse racism, too.

This brings me to the recent events with Tayvon Martin. The events are not yet clear - it could have been justifiable self-defense action by a Latino man, as police have judge the case, or maybe it was more sinister. Just like in the situation with Prof. Gates, Obama decided to weigh in on this situation before all the facts are in. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," said Obama and urged "soul searching" among all of us. Apparently he forgot to take his own advice. Is Obama's statement about appearances? In other words, the logic is "he's black like me, must be a good kid". Or was it about the essence of this young man, his character? This connotation is likely to come back to bite Obama, if it is confirmed that Trayvon was the aggressor, because it would expose his apparent contentment with the rotting culture of violence and the sense of entitlement that undermine future of many minority children.

I think the president has much better things to concern himself with, but since it is a black man who has been shot Obama's first reaction is to go to the bat for him, without bothering with waiting for the evidence. As a lawyer, and a politician Obama should know better - a good lawyers knows not to ask a question he does not know an answer to. A good politician has the presence of mind to avoid needless controversy. Why is Obama raising racial issues so imprudently again? It seems unlikely that Obama feels the need to prove his credentials to the black community - they will vote for him anyway. The remaining explanation is that he instinctively favors a black person in an altercation with a person of any other color. That's racial bigotry, and the country knows it.

Obama's imprudence mirrors the rhetoric of two established racists - Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, both of whom hurried to proclaim the Martin was a victim of racial prejudice. 'Blacks are under attack,' yelled Jesse Jackson. Farrakhan tweeted a warning: "Where there is no justice, there will be no peace... Law of retaliation may... be applied".

The black community meanwhile is following these "leaders" and coming out in strong support of Martin, including wearing "Hoodies" in a church during a service. These communities have prejudged the case, and have left themselves no room to retreat. If Trayvon turns out to be the attacker, they will look like a bunch of fools who champion delinquency.

Senior Pastor Rev. Raphael Warnock at Ebenezer Baptist
 Church  in Atlanta made the Trayvon Martin case
the focus  of his sermon on "Hoodie Sunday. 

Russians gave up on democracy

Russian opposition was utterly unsuccessful battling Putin's propaganda machine, and as I noted, it looked like an amateur battling a professional.

The polls of Russians indicate the their awareness of meetings in support of Putin was twice as outpaced those of the opposition fold. Russian polling agency VCIOM found that 60% of those questioned heard about meetings supporting Putin, while only about 30% were aware of demonstrations "For Fair Elections", 17% were not sure of the meetings political slant. 8% were not aware of these meetings.

According to the earlier polls, awareness of Russians about meetings favoring Putin or "United Russia" is rising - 20% in December, 38% in February and 60% in March. The awareness with the meetings organized by the opposition decreased - 54, 48 and 30%, respectively. These statistics are consistent with the view that the propaganda efforts of Putin's party was successful in displacing the awareness of meetings opposing Putin in the minds of most Russians.

Sign reads "My decisive vote - for Putin"

The poll found that the public support for the opposition is fairly broad, but waning. For example, in December 48% of Russians were for overturning the results of rigged Duma (Parliament) elections, with only 28% opposed.

In march polls taken after Putin's reelection 38% of Russians continued to support the main demand of the opposition - review of elections, however, a majority of 49% consider them baseless. Unfortunately, these numbers have moved in the wrong direction. The general discontentment with rigged elections has not translated into a proactive stance for majority of the Russians. 

The March poll found the majority Russians (42%) to be indifferent to the protests. A mere 17% of responders favored opposition protests, with 14% expressing unease about them. 10% of Russians are tired of meetings "For Fair Elections" or have become disappointed with them.

These poll numbers quantify what many have feared - Putin's propaganda successfully countered the opposition protests by parroting them, then driving the Russians towards their familiar state of resignation.
The opposition has run out of steam. The failure of opposition to provide a credible alternative to Putin, or to differentiate itself in the media in the eyes of an average Russian, may herald a few years of resigned acquiescence of the hopeless masses, and a weakening of the opposition.

What's the point of coming to a meeting now to stand for hours in the cold? All of opposition's demands were ignored, and they have no hope of effecting change in the foreseeable future.

French response to terrorism

Terror has come to the Toulouse. How did the French response to the massacre? In a way that reinforces the unfortunate stereotypes of French as great talkers.

A recap of the facts: a French national of Algerian descent, Mohamed Merah, murdered seven people in cold blood, including three Jewish children and a rabbi.

First of all, French have had many warnings of Merah's radicalism, as well as his criminal behavior. Merah has trained in al-Quada camps and was arrested in Afghanistan by the U.S. forces. The French authorities were aware that Merah distributed radical Islamist literature in Toulouse, after the mother of one of the teenagers Merah approached talked to the police. The police did nothing. Merah beat up the teenager and his younger sister, prompting the concerned mother to talk to the police again - to no avail.

As the mother of the teenager said, “All these people had to die before they finally arrest Mohamed Merah. What an enormous waste. The police knew this individual was dangerous and radicalized. I complained to the police twice about Mohamed Merah and tried to follow up several times.”

Melah's older brother Abdelkader told the police he was "proud" of his brother's actions, admitted helping him steal the scooter used in the murders, but claimed he was not aware of the deadly plot. The lawyer for Abdelkader girlfriend, Guy Debuissou, said that Abdelkader "celebrated" the death of his brother. The police have wised up and charged Abdelkader as an accomplice. Has justice been served? I wish the answer was "yes".

The French authorities are reluctant to admit the danger of rising antisemitism, and their attempts to whitewash the reality, reduce the likelihood any meaningful action is taken.

Consider the response of authorities in this case - they initially tried to pin the blame for the Toulouse massacre on Nazis, and when they reluctantly acknowledged Merah’s jihadist identity, they also provided his justification for murder. Speaking to reporters, French Interior Minister Claude Gueant said that Merah was associated with al-Qaida and he was upset about what he referred to as Israel’s “murder” of Palestinian children.

You can't help but be reminded of the fact that many Europeans view terrorism against Jews as justified by Israeli politics. After Anders Breivik's attack against his fellow Norwegians, including the government sponsored camp where young people terrorism role-played being Hamas, the Norwegian Ambassador Svein Sevje on Israel gave to an interview to Maariv, where he said "We Norwegians view the occupation as the reason for terror against Israel. Many Norwegians still see the occupation as the reason for attacks against Israel. Whoever thinks this way, will not change his mind as a result of the attack in Oslo."

Toulouse victims.

Imagine an ambassador to your country hypocritically tells it that terrorism against you is justified because you're bad (while terrorism against us makes no sense). How does he remain ambassador after that? As far as I'm concerned, Norway government is a sympathizer and an ally of Hamas. That's a damning statement, and by using ambassador's own logic the killing of Norway's children by Breivick is justified.

I've pointed out before that some parts of Europe are conducting a war by proxy against Israel. After the murders of Jewish children and a father of two of them, the EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton's moral obtuseness and evidence of anything but upright impartiality. Ashton compared the murder of three Jewish children in Toulouse on March 19 to the incident involving a crashed bus full of children and the suffering in Syria and Gaza. “Such disgraceful equation reflects an incredibly twisted value system coupled with total blindness in the face of global and Mideastern reality”, writes Ygal Walt in conservative daily Yediot Aharonot:

It is no wonder that Hamas rushed to praise Ashton for her statements, thereby highlighting Europe’s moral confusion. […] The European Union’s embarrassing “clarification,” which did not deny Ashton’s remarks but merely claimed she did not mean to compare Toulouse to Gaza, made no difference. If anything, it further demonstrated Europe’s spinelessness and the tendency to shift positions and appease different groups, without adhering to a credible, enduring moral compass.

All that remains now is to watch the deterioration of the “old continent” into a new, murky horizon. On the one hand, Islamization trends are expected to grow, while on the other hand, radical nationalistic parties will continue to gain strength. Europe of the late 20th Century, which vowed to uphold the banner of tolerance and liberalism, will slowly turn into a chaotic, angry region where various groups are fighting each other while shunning genuine moral values. In any case, Ms. Ashton need not apologize for or clarify her remarks. After all, her words accurately reflected the mood of her decayed, dying continent.

Clearly, Ashton's speech is at a minimum a proof of “Europe’s spinelessness”, if not moral complicity, although some apologists for its behavior argue that Israel is "playing victim".

There are about 6 million Muslims living in France, or  about 10% of the population. This demographic reality has a lot to do with French impotence in dealing with Islamic terrorism. The other part, as I have argued before is a culturally-ingrained, reflexive antisemitism.

Consider the horrific case from 2006 when a Muslim gang in led by Youssef Fofana kidnapped and tortured Ilan Halimi to death. They also took pictures of their handiwork that were clearly imitations of the photos that Daniel Pearl’s killers took of him before they chopped his head off. In the case of Halimi’s murder Paris police refused to view his abduction as a hate crime, despite the fact that Fofana and his followers called Halimi’s family and recited Koranic verses while Ilan screamed out in agony in the background.

France 2 TV channel gave French this century’s first anti-Semitic blood libel with its October 2000 tale of Muhammad al-Dura’s alleged death at the hands of IDF soldier. When Philippe Karsenty wrote on his personal website that the al-Dura story was a hoax, he was charged with libel. An appellate court in Paris in overturned a lower court’s libel ruling against the Internet activist in 2008. Last month, France’s Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered it to retry the case.

As far as the Supreme Court of France is concerned, the appellate court had no right to ask France 2 to provide evidence that its story was true. According to the court, the unedited footage which proved the story was a blood libel should never have been admitted as evidence. The truth should never have been permitted to come to light.

Yes, it's that bad. So, I repeat my charge - these examples demonstrate nothing short of a propaganda and proxy war against Jews and Israel. Although I consider the continent to be a lost cause - it is largely bankrupt morally and economically - it is important to shame the EU for it's outrageous stance, and not merely let it slide.

Unfortunately, Europe is not alone in it's hatred of the Jews. Similar to Ashton and other moral equivocators, the U.S.President Barack Obama engaged in outrageous libels when during his speech to the Muslim world in June 2009 he compared the Holocaust with Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

Barack Obama has called on the U.S. to do some "soul searching" when a punk teenager was gunned down. It is already emerging that the teenager was an aggressor, and the police have considered the shooting to be justified self-defense. Jesse Jackson opined that "blacks are under attack". The horrific race-based attack in Toulouse is cause for "soul searching" because "Jews are under attack" for being Jewish. Yet, Obama chose to defend a black teenager who may have been a perpetrator of an assault rather than innocent Jewish children.

The knee jerk defense of a black boy, and the relative indifference of the White House to the clear horror Toulouse shows that Obama is a racist-in-chief. So, in defense of French incompetence in fighting the rising antisemitism I can say that they are not alone - despite claims of egalitarianism in the West racial biases are still widespread.

Puttin' an end to the Pussy Riot in Russia

It has been barely a month since a "punk service" of the group Pussy Riot in the Church of Christ the Savior in Moscow, the girls have become a lighting rod of criticism from self-professed defenders of the Russian orthodox church. Three of these girls are now in prison, and face up to seven years behind bars. Meanwhile, the church insists that they are facing a planed anti-religious and anti-Russian conspiracy, because there were journalists prepared to cover the event on hand.

The three faceless protesters who have been jailed.

I noted the over-the-top reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church after the punk service. The vehemence of the attack cannot be understood through the flawed logic of those representatives who used this occasion to favorably reflect on the Bolsheviks, who had blown up the original Cathedral in 1931. Recall, instead, that the title of the song performed in the punk service was "Holy mother, drive Putin out!". If the girls sang "Holy mother, save Putin"  the reaction of the church, I assure you, would have been muted. The girls have exposed themselves to Putin's revenge under the guise of defending the Russian Orthodox Church. 

This case is producing a strong resonance in Russia, and has invigorated the opposition, which has been depressed since Putin's comfortable reelection. In places as far as Novisibirsk (deep in Sioberia) the light-boxes for ads were filled with styled "icons" depicting the Holy Mother wearing a purple balaclva.

In Pussy Riot we trust in Novosibirsk.  The Holy Mother wearing
a balaclava in the style of Pussy Riot.

Prior to his reelection, Putin extending his maximum tolerance of the opposition. Now, however, the arrested girls are likely to pay a heavy price for their antics. Putin can make an example of them while supposedly keeping his hands clean - and letting the Church lead the prosecution.

The hand of politically motivated justice can be heavy indeed. On March 17th, in Belarus a couple of random dudes were executed based on a highly dubious connection to a terrorist attack in the Minsk subway on April 2011. Someone has to pay for the sacrilege - an old Russian truism. As an added bonus, the Russians have the actual perpetrators, not mere scapegoats. Unless the public outcry grows stronger, these unorthodox protesters and their young children will pay a heavy price for desecration of Putin in a church.

Putin is puttin' an end to the Pussy Riot in Russia. 
Pray for for them, Holy Mother.

Insanity in Afghanistan

On 22 February several members of the U.S. armed forced stationed at the Bagram airfield in Afghanistan dropped some Islamic texts, including copies of the Koran, into an incinerator to be burned. Several Afghan garbage collectors at the base reported finding a number of charred books and quickly made this incident public.

The question of motivation (or sanity) of an American soldier who killed 16 civilians, including many women and children remains to be determined. The horrific story has important implications for the US-Afghanistan relation. It even affects the US presidential campaign.

Let's recall some basic facts. Bagram airbase is one of the largest American military bases in Afghanistan that was built by the Russians, who were despised by much of the local population, but were never on the receiving end of such protests.

Overcoming the language barrier. An Afghani protesting
outside besieged Bagram gives the Americans the finger.

The day after the incident Obama apologized to Karzai. Nevertheless, the unrest has resulted in at least 41 dead and 270 wounded in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Several American and French soldiers were killed by their Afghani counterparts. Nobody has apologizes to the U.S. for these deaths. When I googled "Karzai apologizes to Obama" the search engine suggested I had it backwards, giving me links to "Obama apologizes to Karzai". Apparently our Afghani allies consider copies of Koran to be more important than the  lives of servicemen of its US ally.

Let me suggest a possible diagnosis of the U.S. soldier who went on a murderous rampage in Afghanistan - his insanity lay in seeking revenge, and acting upon his frustrations. His actions also showcase the weakness and hypocrisy of the position of U.S. position -- which much be particularly hard to bear for a serviceman --  apologizing for unintentional burning of Korans, but not even attempting to defend the servicemen from murderous rage of the local barbarians.

In order to handle this political faux pas the U.S. is going to declare the serviceman who perpetrated this atrocity insane, regardless of the fact that he's on par with the rationality with many of the locals. The real insanity, as many are beginning to realize, lies in the very presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Pussy Riot desecrates Putin in a church

How will the newly empowered Putin handle civil unrest? We're getting a taste of it after Putin's re-election on March 4th. Two members of an all-girl punk band Pussy Riot have been jailed and may face stiff prison sentences for a prank-like performance inside Moscow’s main Orthodox cathedral last month.

Five members of the group filmed themselves dancing in front of the cathedral altar, playing electric guitars and singing a hymn-like punk song, “Holy Mother, Blessed Virgin, drive Putin out!”

Pussy Riot band member dancing in front of the altar.

Rocking up the church.

"Negative," was how Mr Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov described Putin’s reaction to the scandal in an interview with Dozhd internet television channel. “Honestly speaking, as far as what happened in the cathedral, there's no other way than ‘disgusting’ to describe it, with all the consequences that implies,” he said.

Sign reads: "Freedom for
Tolokno"

While the girls managed to escape the cathedral of Christ the Saviour without being arrested, several members of the band were detained during the weekend, though all but two were released pending trial. The remaining two are possibly facing a stiff jail sentence. A number of bloggers have signed an internet petition asking for leniency for the two, other petitioners are bringing the issue to light by holding up signs in front of various government buildings.

The amusing thing is the reaction of the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church: "Even the Bolsheviks, in their time didn't allow themselves such sacrilege, which occurred during the punk-prayer," says Vladimir Legoyda. According to him the difference is that "the godless soviets at least ushered people from the church before attempting to destroy, or defile it", while the girls for Pussy Riot carried out their "protest" right in front of the congregation. What is really curious about this position, which implicitly sides with Putin in its harsh criticism of the protest is the language used by the relatively young (38-year old) Legoyda. The soviets did in fact remove people from the church before destroying it, quite literally.

Explosive demolition of Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
Moscow, 1931.

In 1931, almost a decade and a half after the November revolution, the Soviets decided to blow up the ancient church. The current church is a (cheap) reconstruction build in 1990's that already needs restoration to make up for the hasty construction of this replica. 

How short the memories are, even by people like Legoyda, who should know better and be more careful with their words. There is a saying: "The struggle of freedom against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetfulness." That also applies to Putin's nature. We already know what to expect from him - Putin is going to put an end to this Pussy Riot in Russia.