Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Beginning of the end

July 25, 2011

Five points to ponder

1. You cannot Legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the rich out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, THAT IS THE BEGINING OF THE END OF ANY NATION!

Cloward-Piven Government

February 9, 2010

By James Simpson

November 23, 2009

Read entire article here

It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.
In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O’Reilly, and now Mark Levin.
The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled “The Weight of the Poor,” they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.
The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”
They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the “Motor Voter” act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.
As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited.
ACORN’s vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.
The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.
It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”
The real goal of “health care” legislation, the real goal of “cap-and-trade,” and the real goal of the “stimulus” is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.
This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Charles Rangel* said, “the middle class will be too distracted to fight.”
These people are our enemies. They don’t use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.
It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so — the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.
Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect  competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.
After that, all bets are off.

It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.
In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O’Reilly, and now Mark Levin.
The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled “The Weight of the Poor,” they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.
The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”
They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the “Motor Voter” act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.
As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited. ACORN’s vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.
The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.
It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”
The real goal of “health care” legislation, the real goal of “cap-and-trade,” and the real goal of the “stimulus” is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.
This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Charles Rangel* said, “the middle class will be too distracted to fight.”
These people are our enemies. They don’t use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.
It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so — the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.
Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect  competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.
After that, all bets are off.

By James SimpsonIn September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O’Reilly, and now Mark Levin.The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled “The Weight of the Poor,” they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the “Motor Voter” act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited.ACORN’s vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”The real goal of “health care” legislation, the real goal of “cap-and-trade,” and the real goal of the “stimulus” is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Charles Rangel* said, “the middle class will be too distracted to fight.”These people are our enemies. They don’t use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so — the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect  competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.After that, all bets are off.

Another U.S. civil war looming?

December 15, 2009

According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net), “Russian military analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that U.S. President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)’s top leader, U.S. Air Force General Gene Renuart, to ‘begin immediately’ increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter. According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks ‘numerous’ meetings with his war council abut how best to manage the expected implosion of his nation’s banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States’ military hegemony over the world in what Russian military analysts state is a ‘last ditch gambit’ whose success is ‘far from certain.'”
The EU Times article continues by saying, “To the fears of Obama over the United States erupting into civil war once the full extent of the rape and pillaging of these peoples by their banks and government becomes known to them, grim evidence now shows the likelihood of this occurring much sooner than later.”
The Times story goes on to say that there are “over 220 million American people armed to the teeth and ready to explode.”
The Times article concludes by saying, “Though the coming civil war in the United States is being virtually ignored by their propaganda media, the same cannot be said of Russia, where leading Russian political analyst, Professor Igor Panarin

Buy This Product Or Go To Jail

November 11, 2009

November 09, 2009 6:30 PM From Sunlen Miller:

During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren’t subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance.  That’s — that’s basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.

Read more from Jake Tapper’s interview with President Obama HERE.

-Sunlen Miller

 

Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care

September 19, 2009

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won’t cover illegal immigrants, but argued that’s all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

Read the full article here.

He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered – a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.

“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”

Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.
“It is ironic that the president told the American people that illegal immigrants should not be covered by the health care bill, but now just days later he’s talking about letting them in the back door,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

“If the American people do not want to provide government health care for illegal immigrants, why would they support giving them citizenship, the highest honor America can bestow?” Mr. Smith said.

But immigrant rights groups see the speech as a signal that Mr. Obama is committed to providing health care coverage for anyone in the United States legally, regardless of their citizenship status.

“It’s the first time I’ve certainly heard, publicly, him talking more about legal immigrants,” said Eric Rodriguez, vice president for research and advocacy at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). “I think that was certainly positive progress. We were absolutely concerned about not hearing that.”

ACORN Official Admits Murder and Threatening Murder???

September 16, 2009

Murder??? You watch and listen and be the judge. Maybe now the police and Congress will do a real investigation. How many millions of tax dollars has to be given to these people before congress acts??

A million march to US Capitol to protest against ‘Obama the socialist’

September 14, 2009

A million march to US Capitol to protest against ‘Obama the socialist’
By DAVID GARDNER
Last updated at 6:59 AM on 14th September 2009
Comments (279)
Add to My Stories
As many as one million people flooded into Washington for a massive rally organised by conservatives claiming that President Obama is driving America towards socialism.
The size of the crowd – by far the biggest protest since the president took office in January – shocked the White House.
Demonstrators massed outside Capitol Hill after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue waving placards and chanting ‘Enough, enough’.
Tens of thousands of people converged on Capitol Hill on Saturday to protest against government spending
The focus of much of the anger was the president’s so-called ‘Obamacare’ plan to overhaul the U.S. health system.
Demonstrators waved U.S. flags and held signs reading ‘Go Green Recycle Congress’ and ‘I’m Not Your ATM’.’
The protest on Saturday came as Mr Obama took his campaign for health reforms on the road, making his argument to a rally of 15,000 supporters in Minneapolis.
Saying he was determined to push through a bill making health insurance more affordable, Mr Obama said: ‘I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it.
‘I will not waste time with those who think that it’s just good politics to kill healthcare.’
But in Washington, protester Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam veteran, said: ‘It’s going to cost too much money we don’t have.’ Another marcher shouted: ‘You want socialism? Go to Russia!’
Terri Hall, 45, of Florida, said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.
‘Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted,’ she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.
Anna Hayes, 58, a nurse from Fairfax County, stood on the Mall in 1981 for Reagan’s inauguration. ‘The same people were celebrating freedom,’ she said. ‘The president was fighting for the people then. I remember those years very well and fondly.’
Saying she was worried about ‘Obamacare,’Hayes explained: ‘This is the first rally I’ve been to that demonstrates against something, the first in my life. I just couldn’t stay home anymore.’
Andrew Moylan, of the National Taxpayers Union, received a roar of approval after he told protesters: ‘Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored.’
Republican lawmakers also supported the rally.
‘Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order,’ Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said.
‘I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough.’
FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, organized several groups from across the country for what they billed as a ‘March on Washington.’
Organisers said they had built on momentum from the April ‘tea party’ demonstrations held nationwide to protest at Mr Obama’s taxation policies, along with growing resentment over his economic stimulus packages and bank bailouts.
The heated demonstrations were organized by a Conservative group called the Tea Party Patriots
Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights.
Recent polls illustrate how difficult recent weeks have been for a president who, besides tackling health care, has been battling to end a devastatingly deep recession.
Fifty per cent approve and 49 per cent disapprove of the overall job he is doing as president, compared to July, when those approving his performance clearly outnumbered those who were unhappy with it, 55 per cent to 42 per cent.
Just 42 percent approve of the president’s work on the high-profile health issue.
‘Parasite-in-chief’: The title given to the American President during the demonstrations on Saturday
The poll was taken over five days just before Obama’s speech to Congress. That speech reflected Obama’s determination to push ahead despite growing obstacles.
Prior to Obama’s speech before Congress U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man they say tried to get into a secure area near the Capitol with a gun in his car as President Barack Obama was speaking.
On Thursday police spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider said that 28-year-old Joshua Bowman of suburban Falls Church, Virginia, was arrested around 8pm on Wednesday when Obama was due to speak.

A million march to US Capitol to protest against ‘Obama the socialist’

By DAVID GARDNER

Last updated at 6:59 AM on 14th September 2009


Read entire article here

A million march to US Capitol to protest against ‘Obama the socialist’

By DAVID GARDNER

Last updated at 6:59 AM on 14th September 2009

Comments (279)

Add to My Stories

As many as one million people flooded into Washington for a massive rally organised by conservatives claiming that President Obama is driving America towards socialism.

The size of the crowd – by far the biggest protest since the president took office in January – shocked the White House.

Demonstrators massed outside Capitol Hill after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue waving placards and chanting ‘Enough, enough’.

Tens of thousands of people converged on Capitol Hill on Saturday to protest against government spending

The focus of much of the anger was the president’s so-called ‘Obamacare’ plan to overhaul the U.S. health system.

Demonstrators waved U.S. flags and held signs reading ‘Go Green Recycle Congress’ and ‘I’m Not Your ATM’.’

The protest on Saturday came as Mr Obama took his campaign for health reforms on the road, making his argument to a rally of 15,000 supporters in Minneapolis.

Saying he was determined to push through a bill making health insurance more affordable, Mr Obama said: ‘I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it.

‘I will not waste time with those who think that it’s just good politics to kill healthcare.’

But in Washington, protester Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam veteran, said: ‘It’s going to cost too much money we don’t have.’ Another marcher shouted: ‘You want socialism? Go to Russia!’

Terri Hall, 45, of Florida, said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.

‘Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted,’ she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.

Anna Hayes, 58, a nurse from Fairfax County, stood on the Mall in 1981 for Reagan’s inauguration. ‘The same people were celebrating freedom,’ she said. ‘The president was fighting for the people then. I remember those years very well and fondly.’

Saying she was worried about ‘Obamacare,’Hayes explained: ‘This is the first rally I’ve been to that demonstrates against something, the first in my life. I just couldn’t stay home anymore.’

Andrew Moylan, of the National Taxpayers Union, received a roar of approval after he told protesters: ‘Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored.’

Republican lawmakers also supported the rally.

‘Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order,’ Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said.

‘I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough.’

FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, organized several groups from across the country for what they billed as a ‘March on Washington.’

Organisers said they had built on momentum from the April ‘tea party’ demonstrations held nationwide to protest at Mr Obama’s taxation policies, along with growing resentment over his economic stimulus packages and bank bailouts.

The heated demonstrations were organized by a Conservative group called the Tea Party Patriots

Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights.

Recent polls illustrate how difficult recent weeks have been for a president who, besides tackling health care, has been battling to end a devastatingly deep recession.

Fifty per cent approve and 49 per cent disapprove of the overall job he is doing as president, compared to July, when those approving his performance clearly outnumbered those who were unhappy with it, 55 per cent to 42 per cent.

Just 42 percent approve of the president’s work on the high-profile health issue.

‘Parasite-in-chief’: The title given to the American President during the demonstrations on Saturday

The poll was taken over five days just before Obama’s speech to Congress. That speech reflected Obama’s determination to push ahead despite growing obstacles.

Prior to Obama’s speech before Congress U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man they say tried to get into a secure area near the Capitol with a gun in his car as President Barack Obama was speaking.

On Thursday police spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider said that 28-year-old Joshua Bowman of suburban Falls Church, Virginia, was arrested around 8pm on Wednesday when Obama was due to speak.

As many as one million people flooded into Washington for a massive rally organised by conservatives claiming that President Obama is driving America towards socialism.

The size of the crowd – by far the biggest protest since the president took office in January – shocked the White House.

Demonstrators massed outside Capitol Hill after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue waving placards and chanting ‘Enough, enough’.

Tens of thousands of people converged on Capitol Hill on Saturday to protest against government spending

The focus of much of the anger was the president’s so-called ‘Obamacare’ plan to overhaul the U.S. health system.

Demonstrators waved U.S. flags and held signs reading ‘Go Green Recycle Congress’ and ‘I’m Not Your ATM’.’

The protest on Saturday came as Mr Obama took his campaign for health reforms on the road, making his argument to a rally of 15,000 supporters in Minneapolis.

Saying he was determined to push through a bill making health insurance more affordable, Mr Obama said: ‘I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it.


‘I will not waste time with those who think that it’s just good politics to kill healthcare.’

But in Washington, protester Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam veteran, said: ‘It’s going to cost too much money we don’t have.’ Another marcher shouted: ‘You want socialism? Go to Russia!’

Terri Hall, 45, of Florida, said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.

‘Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted,’ she said. She added that the deficit spending was out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.

Anna Hayes, 58, a nurse from Fairfax County, stood on the Mall in 1981 for Reagan’s inauguration. ‘The same people were celebrating freedom,’ she said. ‘The president was fighting for the people then. I remember those years very well and fondly.’

Saying she was worried about ‘Obamacare,’Hayes explained: ‘This is the first rally I’ve been to that demonstrates against something, the first in my life. I just couldn’t stay home anymore.’

Andrew Moylan, of the National Taxpayers Union, received a roar of approval after he told protesters: ‘Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored.’

Republican lawmakers also supported the rally.

‘Republicans, Democrats and independents are stepping up and demanding we put our fiscal house in order,’ Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said.

‘I think the overriding message after years of borrowing, spending and bailouts is enough is enough.’

FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, organized several groups from across the country for what they billed as a ‘March on Washington.’

Organisers said they had built on momentum from the April ‘tea party’ demonstrations held nationwide to protest at Mr Obama’s taxation policies, along with growing resentment over his economic stimulus packages and bank bailouts.




The heated demonstrations were organized by a Conservative group called the Tea Party Patriots

Other sponsors of the rally include the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform and the Ayn Rand Center for Individuals Rights.

Recent polls illustrate how difficult recent weeks have been for a president who, besides tackling health care, has been battling to end a devastatingly deep recession.

Fifty per cent approve and 49 per cent disapprove of the overall job he is doing as president, compared to July, when those approving his performance clearly outnumbered those who were unhappy with it, 55 per cent to 42 per cent.

Just 42 percent approve of the president’s work on the high-profile health issue.


‘Parasite-in-chief’: The title given to the American President during the demonstrations on Saturday

The poll was taken over five days just before Obama’s speech to Congress. That speech reflected Obama’s determination to push ahead despite growing obstacles.

Prior to Obama’s speech before Congress U.S. Capitol Police arrested a man they say tried to get into a secure area near the Capitol with a gun in his car as President Barack Obama was speaking.

On Thursday police spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider said that 28-year-old Joshua Bowman of suburban Falls Church, Virginia, was arrested around 8pm on Wednesday when Obama was due to speak.

Read entire article here

The Monroe Doctrine is DEAD

September 14, 2009

Venezuela to Develop Nuclear Energy With Russian Help (Update1)

By Daniel Cancel
Read entire article here

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) — Venezuela President Hugo Chavez said the South American country plans to develop a nuclear energy program with Russia and doesn’t want to build an atomic bomb.

Chavez said that the country’s oil and gas reserves won’t last forever and the government will seek alternative energy sources. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin agreed to help Venezuela’s nuclear energy program during a meeting in Moscow last week, Chavez said.

“We’re not going to make an atomic bomb, so don’t bother us like with Iran,” he said on state television. “We’re going to develop nuclear energy with peaceful purposes.”

Chavez is a close ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who’s under international sanctions for continuing with the country’s nuclear energy program under suspicions by the U.S. and its allies that Iran is working toward making atomic weapons.

Robert Morgenthau, New York’s District Attorney, said last week that Venezuela may be helping Iran skirt sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the U.S. by transfering funds through the Venezuelan financial system.

To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Cancel in Caracas at dcancel@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: September 13, 2009 17:56 EDT

‘Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby’

September 9, 2009

By VANESSA ALLEN and ANDREW LEVY
Last updated at 7:58 AM on 09th September 2009

Read The Article Here

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Enlarge Sarah Capewell, mother of Jayden Capewell

Battle: Sarah Capewell is fighting to have guidelines about caring for very premature babies changed

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Sarah Capewell and her daughter Jodi

Heartbreak: Sarah Capewell with her daughter Jodi, five

Sarah Capewell
Jayden Capewell

Sarah Capewell is fighting for new guidelines on when infants should be given intensive care after her premature son Jayden (right) was refused treatment

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ‘standard practice’.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: ‘Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.’

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

James Paget Hospital

Short life: Miss Capewell’s son Jayden died two hours after he was born at James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, Norfolk, in October 2008

She said: ‘When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a “little fighter”.

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, “They won’t come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him”.’

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby’s lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

Jayden Capewell
Jayden Capewell

Treasured memories: Pictures of baby Jason’s feet and hands

She told how she begged one paediatrician, ‘You have got to help’, only for the man to respond: ‘No we don’t.’

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: ‘I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn’t even born yet, let alone dead.’

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

Justice for Jayden: His mother is campaigning to change the law

Justice for Jayden: His mother is campaigning to change the law

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother’s pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: ‘I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

‘Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won’t survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?’

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: ‘When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.’

What the medical guidelines say…

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child’s ‘best interests’.

The guidelines said: ‘If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.’

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a ‘set of instructions’, but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor’s are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html#ixzz0QdMqsLwl

Congressman wants all ‘czars’ to testify

September 9, 2009

By Jordan Fabian – 09/09/09 10:11 AM ET

Read The Article Here

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Wednesday called for President Obama’s “czars,” or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their “authority and responsibilities” in the executive branch.

The president’s “czars” have become a point of controversy among his opponents because they do not have to be confirmed by the Senate as cabinet-level officials do.

McHenry wrote to committee chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asking the appointed officials to testify.

“If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process,” McHenry, who is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in his letter.

Czars were in the spotlight again after “green jobs” czar Van Jones’ resigned this weekend. It was revealed that Jones made harsh comments about Republicans and signed a “truther” petition alleging that the government played a role in the 9/11 attacks.

“His ability to slip into a position of power without due Congressional diligence only further underscores the necessity for a confirmation process,” the third-term Republican said of Jones.

However, the actual number of czars in the administration is a disputed matter. McHenry requests that all of President Obama’s 44 czars testify before Congress. But other reports put the number at around 30.

The North Carolina Republican did not provide a list of the 44 czars he wants to testify.

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

August 15, 2009

Just listen to this and decide for yourself.

Find it on this web address

Charges Dropped Against Black Panther

August 9, 2009

The article appears here
EXCLUSIVE: No. 3 at Justice OK’d Panther reversal
Case involved polling place in Philadelphia

By Jerry Seper (Contact)

Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 30, 2009, updated 04:59 p.m., July 30, 2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the Obama Justice Department, was consulted and ultimately approved a decision in May to reverse course and drop a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election, according to interviews.

The department’s career lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division who pursued the complaint for five months had recommended that Justice seek sanctions against the party and three of its members after the government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the men.

Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.

The delay was ordered by then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King after she discussed with Mr. Perrelli concerns about the case during one of their regular review meetings, according to the interviews.

Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.

She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.

Dan Rather wants Obama to help save the news

August 9, 2009

The Article appears here

by Andrew Travers, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather called on President Barack Obama to form a White House commission to help save the press Tuesday night in an impassioned speech at the Aspen Institute.

“I personally encourage the president to establish a White House commission on public media,” the legendary newsman said.

Such a commission on media reform, Rather said, ought to make recommendations on saving journalism jobs and creating new business models to keep news organizations alive.

At stake, he argued, is the very survival of American democracy.

“A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom,” Rather said in an interview yesterday afternoon. “This is not something just for journalists to be concerned about, and the loss of jobs and the loss of newspapers, and the diminution of the American press’ traditional role of being the watchdog on power. This is something every citizen should be concerned about.”

Rather, who has been a working reporter for more than six decades and currently hosts “Dan Rather Reports” on HDNet, pointed out that there are precedents for such national commissions, which have been used to help other at-risk industries.

Corporate and political influence on newsrooms, along with the conflation of news and entertainment, has created what Rather called “the dumbing down and sleazing up of what we see on the news.”


Heather Rousseau/Aspen Daily News

Dan Rather shares some of his thoughts on the state of public media as he gives a personal interview at the Aspen Meadows on Tuesday before his speech at the Aspen Institute later that evening.

It has also thinned the amount of investigative and international journalism. The latter loss of correspondents covering America’s two foreign wars, Rather opined, is both a critical detriment to the nation and a disservice to our troops.

Tears welled in the lifelong reporter’s eyes as he discussed the dwindling number of war correspondents.

“I feel particularly strong about coverage of the wars,” he said, noting that covering the war in Afghanistan is his top priority on his HDNet program. “No apologies, both as a journalist and as a citizen I just can’t stand to leave those guys out there, fighting, dying, bleeding, getting torn up and say, ‘Look, it’s page 14 news.’ Or ‘Sorry, not on tonight’s newscast.’ It’s an example of the problem, that and not having the watchdogs.”

The free press, as established by the First Amendment to the Constitution, ought to operate as a public trust, not solely as a money-making endeavor, Rather argued, and it’s time the government make an effort to ensure the survival of the free press. If not the government, he suggested, then an organization like the Carnegie Foundation should take it on. Without action, he predicted, America will lose its independent media.

“If we do nothing more than stand back and hope that innovation alone will solve this crisis,” he said, “then our best-trained journalists will lose their jobs.”

andrew@aspendailynews.com

Comments

liberal government one way

Submitted by michaelp on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 3:20pm.

liberal government one way news ! wow ! we get that now.

»

DAN RATHER WANTS OBAMAS HELP FOR NEWS

Submitted by michaelp on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 3:17pm.

michael Dan the fox news is doing very well. conservative radio is also doing very, very well. your problem with your liberal news is ! liberal news is one way reporting, lies,and the people are not stupid anymore.n.y. times and all liberal one way reporting is over. example: bush went to barney and congress about the upcoming banking problems in 2001.it was in the news back in the day. barney laughed, and nothing was done about it.now were in trouble. THERE WAS NO NEWS ABOUT IT ! even though it was on t.v. in 2001. the same people are still in office bankrupting the country now.why read news that is only one way, and the same reason your not working anymore. you got caught slandering the news .but don’t worry ! obama plans on bailing out the one way reporting. and plans on shutting down conservative news. yes our freedom of speech ! we are now a socialist country now.government is taking over everything. i know your happy, along with soros, and the rest of the liberal commies.

»

Goober Rather

Submitted by worknmal on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 1:57pm.

Just what we need now to inform the ignorant masses. Gov’t funded news run by a guy that makes it up as he goes along.

»

give me a break!

Submitted by williecp on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 1:47pm.

Williecp

Who does this guy think he is? He’s looking for the government to help the press watch the government? Does this sound crazy to anyone else?

If the media is in trouble, then they have no one to blame but themselves. The media hasn’t taken seriously it’s “historic” role as the watchdog on government power since the Nixon Administration. Even more pathetic, we saw most arms of the State Media jump so far in bed with the Obama campaign that it was impossible to tell who was hogging the blanket!

And let’s not even talk about all the water carried for corrupt organizations like Acorn! Dan, you want someone to investigate? Then how about pulling your head out of your nether regions and practice some SERIOUS journalism and expose the rank corruption and downright evil connections between the DNC, Americorp, and the above mentioned ACORN!

It is the steadfast refusal of the mainstream media to treat both sides of the political spectrum with appropriate journalistic impartiality that has resulted in declining revenues and lost jobs. The games up people! We know that you’ve been lying to us for decades and we sick of it. We actually have choices now in where we get out news and you elites just can’t deal with that. Too bad. My advice: Suck it up, Buttercup!

»

Dan Blather

Submitted by homo_superior on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 11:30am.

the title says it all

»

Is Smart Journalism an Oxymoron?

Submitted by BelMarin on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 11:24am.

Journalists are supposed to be smart enough to catch the government when it is corrupt. They are also supposed to be smart enough to catch when politicians working for themselves and not working for the folks. They are supposed to be smart enough to explain complicated issues to the ordinary person.

Now we have a whole class of journalists and the people who own newspapers who are not smart enough to run their own businesses properly. How can we trust them to carry out their duties as journalists?

Whether they are idiologs or not is irrelevant since they have shown an inability to deal with idiologies they do not like such as GWB. He proved to be far smarter than the press.

We need to somehow attract smart people into journalism instead of glib idiots who could not explain a Credit Default Swap or any other derivitives to anyone. How can they catch the bad guys when the press doesn’t understand what the bad guys are doing? Credit Default Swaps for instance are insurance policies that were written without any actuarial backup. If the press had figured that out, then we would not be in the financial pickle we find ourselves in today.

»

Some problems with Dan Rather’s position

Submitted by kraftyse on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 10:54am.

1) So we are supposed to divert our already over-extended government revenues to help prop up the mainstream media?

2) There are lots of new media sources for good coverage. The fact is that in the 21st century delivering a big paper that goes “thud” on your doorstep every morning, or a “you must tune in at exactly 5:30 PM to see a national anchor who may or may not talk about anything you are interested in” are both archaic delivery systems for information.

3) Pity the poor journalists! I don’t see anyone lining up to save other specific white-collar professions, so why do journalists qualify for a government bailout?

4) Didn’t Rather and his leaping to conclusions (and then being caught by bloggers) based on forged letters involving GWB’s national guard service serve as a seminal moment in discrediting the journalistic practices and value of the very organizations/professions he now wants to save?

5) Speaking of GWB, would Dan Rather be just as gung-ho about giving a Republican administration and congress so much power over the mainstream media?

Dan–you know why the mainstream media is getting clubbed? Because it is not delivering value. It’s delivery systems are expensive and not customer-friendly. Its content (which it likes to portray as objective) is too often partisan and poorly-researched. I personally would rather pay attention to bloggers and new media, which cost zero tax dollars and if I catch them in acts of hypocrisy and inaccuracies I can easily find other more reliable new media sources.

»

Dan Rather wants Obama to help…

Submitted by loldanrather on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 10:50am.

“A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom,”

ROFL. This is so funny. Yes, a truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom. But the press stopped being truly free and independent YEARS ago. As stated before, they are no longer journalists, but progressive, statist cheerleaders and propagandists. People are hungry for real news, and the reason the press is dying is because they no longer are able to find it.

This last election, with the press acting like infatuated adolescents, is all the evidence the public needed. Who can believe that they are truly free an independent after such a sickening performance?

An overwhelming number of American citizens were long ago concerned about the loss of a free and independent press. The press just would not listen. The public was basically told to shut up and sit down like a good serf…

So we did. We shut up our pocket books and stopped paying attention.

Now Dan Rather wants the government to save the press so that it can be free and independent. ROFL. So, if the government saves the press, how can it then be free an independent and not beholden to the government that just saved it?

This is the logic that doomed the press in the first place. They cannot see the truth when it has just finished pummeling them.

»

Rather, etal.

Submitted by lifot on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 5:16am.

An significant number of Americans are content to get their news in ‘20 second sound bites’ and assume that what they hear is correct; when in reality this is most often a poor assumption. Getting at the truth requires an individual effort that most are unwilling to make and even when the truth is blatantly obvious, it is often discounted or ignored.

The major media in this Country no longer appears to be in the news business, rather they are in the ‘business of news’. This results in the news being packaged in a manner that best suits the media’s interest and not an objective presentation of the facts.

Finally, and perhaps the most alarming is that the major media has clearly lost their journalistic values and have become cheerleaders for every left-wing cause and politician, regardless of the facts or consequences.

We have the Cronkites, Rathers to ‘thank’ for this, however it appears that truth is beginning to prevail as their ratings and stocks are plunging.

»

DAN RATHER

Submitted by ozzie on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 4:19am.

Dan Rather is exactly what is wrong with the MSM. He is one that has caused the general public to look elsewhere for factual news.

»

“not having the watchdogs”

Submitted by William_Brown on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 12:27am.

You were NEVER a watchdog, Rather (pun intended), you were a lickspittle liberal lapdog. I’ve got a memo for you and all of the current crop of state-run media: You helped put this Kenyan communist in office and this citizen invites the whole lot of you to join Cronkite in hell.

»

Yeah Right!

Submitted by leroitroisieme on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 12:12am.

He wants a “Goebbels” state, one-side all the time. Save the press? The press needs to start reporting fairly and accurately. I don’t see this happening anytime soon.

»

Rather is one of the frauds of his biz

Submitted by Profsportster on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 12:03am.

I’ll never forget Rather fronting fake documents attacking Bush. He is a sleeeeeeeezy son of gun, for sure. How amusing to read of him waxing melancholy over the loss of his elite’s monopoly. I grew up listening to the networks spill their statist garbage, and then came Rush. Bye bye news/Hollywood monopoly, hello talk radio! Go hair spray your wig, Danny Boy.

»

What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?

Submitted by LibertarianChick on Wed, 07/29/2009 – 11:57pm.

This is the worst case of calling for the fox to guard the henhouse I have ever heard. We already have an interchangeable media between the administration and traditional media, as well as cross-pollenation of network and cable news organizations and entertainment venues. Dan Rather is not relevant and should quietly fade away with the little respect he has left.

»

Dan Rather

Submitted by Opie254 on Wed, 07/29/2009 – 11:21pm.

Dan rather is an example of a very partisan liberal hack that will always overshadow his integrity as a journalist. after a while reader just stop wasting time reading a distorted and made up story which CBs called news.whe I first arrived in this country 30 years ago the first anchor i watch was Dan Rather and sadly he was also the first one that I stop watching. I lost respect in him as a journalist.

»

Lap Dogs

Submitted by DWarner on Wed, 07/29/2009 – 11:09pm.

Uhh… that doesn’t even make any sense. The press needs to watch the government, so lets have the government set up a commision to tell us how the press should operate.

Our press is a joke. They are sheep in wolves clothing. 12 trillion dollars of debt, body bags from Afghanistan, Iranian nukes, socialized industries, 785 billion dollars of wasted stimulous money and 9.4% unemployment. Where are the tough questions with follow ups?

“Yes Mr. President that was an eloquent answer, but it realy provided no factual explanation of your policies.”

»

“A truly free and independent press”

Submitted by StanM on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 3:47am.

The old dinosaur media hasn’t been “a truly free and independent press” for a long time. First, they changed from reporting the news to reading leftist press releases. And now they have moved on to acting as PR companies for the statists.

I stopped getting my news from TV years ago, and then as the blight spread to print media, I stopped bothering with that also.

If “a truly free and independent press” ever reappears, they will have one more loyal customer. If not, who cares what happens to the current crop of PR flacks>

»

Dan Rather

Submitted by stability-flow on Wed, 07/29/2009 – 10:28pm.

Dan really blew it with his ‘investigative reporting’ during the ’04 election…his time has come and gone.

»

Dan Rather wants Obama to help…

Submitted by JWayne on Wed, 07/29/2009 – 10:12pm.

Dan Rather and his liberal political sycophant ilk have destroyed the credibility of the main stream media and now Rather wants the obamites he helped create to save their own government, state run, advertising agency?
Oh Danny Boy…the pipes the pipes are calling…. You lost because you refuse to lead with truth. All you yes men needed to do is report the facts. Not your wishes, your opinions…the truth.

The truth comes out anyway and when it does you are shown to be the stooges of the left that you are. You yourself Mr. Rather are the walking reincarnation of Goebbels. If you don’t like the news… make some up! And after that, read this afternoon’s spin from your supplied talking points.

Obama’s health care plan is ‘evil’

August 9, 2009

The article appears here


Aug 8, 4:33 AM (ET)

By MARK THIESSEN

NCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama’s health plan “downright evil” Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a “death panel” that would deny care to the neediest Americans.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care,” the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote.

“Such a system is downright evil,” Palin wrote on her page, which has nearly 700,000 supporters. She encouraged her supporters to be engaged in the debate.

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington contributed to this report.

Cancer Patient Offered Gov’t Suicide Funds But Not Medical Care

August 5, 2009

Patient: Negative economic unit

Cancer Patient Offered Gov’t Suicide Funds But Not Medical Care


Doctor C.L. Gray and his Physicians for Reform group tell us of the horror story of Oregon’s government run healthcare plan that offered a cancer patient named Barbara all the suicide assisted funding she wanted, but not one penny for the medical care that could save her life.

As Doctor Gray put it, Barbara was no longer thought of by government as a patient but instead had become a “negative economic unit.” Oregon’s government run healthcare system wanted Barbara dead because keeping her alive was simply to costly.

Warner Todd Huston Most recent columns

Warner Todd Huston’s thoughtful commentary, sometimes irreverent often historically based, is featured on many websites such as renewamerica.ustownhall.com,opinioneditorials.com, and americandaily.com, among many, many others. He has also written for several history magazines, and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture,” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of Publius’ Forum.

Warner can be reached at: igcolonel@hotmail.com

A Letter to President Obama

May 24, 2009

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500

 

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir.  Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America .  You are responsible to the citizens of the United States .  You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world..  Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe ?  Are you brain dead?  What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about?  Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country?  Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States ?  This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage.  Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans.  Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia .  You don’t show Great Britain , our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia .  How dare you, sir!  How dare you!

You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey .  You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves.  What’s the matter with you?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you..

You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses.  What do you intend to do about them?  Anything?  I seriously doubt it. 

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves?  I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus..  I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer.  You haven’t said anything about that.  Who authorized that?  I surely didn’t!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that’s $45 million more than the AIG bonuses.  In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take.   Who authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do.  We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.  I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities.  I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Obama Steps up Attacks against American People

May 22, 2009

 

Tyranny Watch 2: ‘Hate crimes’ against the American people are in full play
Obama Steps up Attacks against American People
Sher Zieve  Bio
Email Article
 By Sher Zieve  Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Under Supreme Leader Obama’s directive of ‘I’m in power now, I’ve seized your country to destroy it as I choose and none of you can do anything about it’, new attacks (which could logically be called “hate crimes”) against the American people are in full play.  Laughing almost as gleefully during his daily television appearance on Tuesday 19 May—as he probably did while he watched his TV showing the masses in New York running from his flyover 747 and two fighter jets—the US Dictator Obama smiled while delivering the news that essentially said that US citizens will probably no longer be able to afford electricity.  With his and the Democrats’ “Cap and Trade” legislation—which will result in a minimum additional $3,100/year/household—Obama is planning to tax it out of existence. 
Note:  Now is the time to stock up on HUGE caches of wood and fans.  And as the burning of wood should create a great deal more pollution, Obama is likely planning to tax it in the future.  Prepare to be taxed on the wood and the fans. 
As liberals and leftists—liberal Republican included—continue to tell us “man made global warming is more dangerous than Islamist terrorists,” the also continue to pilfer our personal resources.  Even though this hoax has been fully exposed, the liberals continue to use the bogus argument as a way to continue to pilfer and steal from We-the-People.  And We-the-People have yet to really fight back against the tyrants who now rule—not work for—us.  Even Obama’s VP Joe Biden ranked terrorist attacks behind air pollution and corn syrup when he said “air that has too much coal in it, corn syrup next, then a terrorist attack.” It may sound as if liberals are truly insane.  The masses of liberals and leftists may just be.  However, their leaders are not.  They know that the lies the populations have been taught since they were children in government-run schools have made them compliant to these rulers’ eventual theft of everything the people used to own.  Or as every good liberal and leftist (AKA Socialist and/or Fascist) worth his or her salt says:  “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” and “the State will provide for our needs.” Those who belong to the mind-numbed classes don’t ever seem to realize that “the State” is pillaging all of their wealth and doling out smaller and smaller portions back to them.  Note:  This stance is even stronger in their leaders.
What can we do?  At this juncture, FLOOD the US Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, ask for your representatives and senators and tell them to stop their thievery and oppression of the American citizen.  Tell them to vote “NO” on Obama’s cap, trade and theft bill.  If they do not, the cooking fires and creeks for washing will soon replace our appliances.  But, that is—after all—the usurper Obama’s plan.  A poor population is a more compliant one.
By the way, these leaders are ostensibly working to stop CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions.  We and all other mammals breathe out Carbon Dioxide.  Plants need CO2 to manufacture Oxygen.  In other words, they are attempting to implement a plan that will ultimately end lives—not save them.  I’m reminded of the recent animated film “The Tale of Despereaux.” One of the lines in the film is “What happens when you make something that is a natural part of the world illegal?” Even a mouse knows the answer. 
Tyranny Watch 2: ‘Hate crimes’ against the American people are in full play
 By Sher Zieve  Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Under Supreme Leader Obama’s directive of ‘I’m in power now, I’ve seized your country to destroy it as I choose and none of you can do anything about it’, new attacks (which could logically be called “hate crimes”) against the American people are in full play.  Laughing almost as gleefully during his daily television appearance on Tuesday 19 May—as he probably did while he watched his TV showing the masses in New York running from his flyover 747 and two fighter jets—the US Dictator Obama smiled while delivering the news that essentially said that US citizens will probably no longer be able to afford electricity.  With his and the Democrats’ “Cap and Trade” legislation—which will result in a minimum additional $3,100/year/household—Obama is planning to tax it out of existence. 
Note:  Now is the time to stock up on HUGE caches of wood and fans.  And as the burning of wood should create a great deal more pollution, Obama is likely planning to tax it in the future.  Prepare to be taxed on the wood and the fans. 
As liberals and leftists—liberal Republican included—continue to tell us “man made global warming is more dangerous than Islamist terrorists,” the also continue to pilfer our personal resources.  Even though this hoax has been fully exposed, the liberals continue to use the bogus argument as a way to continue to pilfer and steal from We-the-People.  And We-the-People have yet to really fight back against the tyrants who now rule—not work for—us.  Even Obama’s VP Joe Biden ranked terrorist attacks behind air pollution and corn syrup when he said “air that has too much coal in it, corn syrup next, then a terrorist attack.” It may sound as if liberals are truly insane.  The masses of liberals and leftists may just be.  However, their leaders are not.  They know that the lies the populations have been taught since they were children in government-run schools have made them compliant to these rulers’ eventual theft of everything the people used to own.  Or as every good liberal and leftist (AKA Socialist and/or Fascist) worth his or her salt says:  “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” and “the State will provide for our needs.” Those who belong to the mind-numbed classes don’t ever seem to realize that “the State” is pillaging all of their wealth and doling out smaller and smaller portions back to them.  Note:  This stance is even stronger in their leaders.
What can we do?  At this juncture, FLOOD the US Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, ask for your representatives and senators and tell them to stop their thievery and oppression of the American citizen.  Tell them to vote “NO” on Obama’s cap, trade and theft bill.  If they do not, the cooking fires and creeks for washing will soon replace our appliances.  But, that is—after all—the usurper Obama’s plan.  A poor population is a more compliant one.
By the way, these leaders are ostensibly working to stop CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions.  We and all other mammals breathe out Carbon Dioxide.  Plants need CO2 to manufacture Oxygen.  In other words, they are attempting to implement a plan that will ultimately end lives—not save them.  I’m reminded of the recent animated film “The Tale of Despereaux.” One of the lines in the film is “What happens when you make something that is a natural part of the world illegal?” Even a mouse knows the answer. 

WHY PELOSI MUST GO

May 22, 2009

 

From: Dick Morris Reports
Subject: WHY PELOSI MUST GO
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 2:20 PM
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 19, 2009 
Printer-Friendly Version
It’s obvious that either Leon Panetta, Obama’s head of the CIA, or Nancy Pelosi, his party’s Speaker of the House, has to go. No administration can tolerate a permanent, public civil war between two such high-ranking officials.
Especially when their disagreement stems not from issues of policy but from matters of veracity and credibility, the battle must end in one of their resignations. You cannot have the head of the nation’s first line of defense against terrorism calling the Speaker of the House a liar and being attacked by her in turn.
Obviously, Obama cannot fire Panetta. First of all, he just appointed him. And second, to cave in to Pelosi (D-Calif.) would earn him the massive disrespect and disapproval of the very operatives on whom he must depend to keep the nation safe.
 Already skeptical of his leftist credentials, the analysts at the CIA would regard it as a massive vote of no confidence if their chief were fired for believing in them.
Like Clinton — whose draft-dodging made his relationship with the military problematic — Obama takes office amid reservations about him on the part of the intelligence community. He has taken pains to reach out to both the uniformed and white-collar intelligence officials to smooth his way and win their trust.
Panetta took over as CIA chief under the cloud of his agency’s distrust of the man who appointed him. Now he is standing firm for his agency and winning its loyalty and support.
Obama cannot pull the rug out from under him without incurring the agency’s permanent animosity. Before Sept. 11, 2001, that may have been an acceptable risk. Now it is not.
But Pelosi is expendable. The job of a Democratic Speaker is to pass the program of the Democratic president. Her ability and track record is measured on a scale of effectiveness. If she is ineffective, she’s not up to the job.
There is no way that Nancy Pelosi can be effective while she is engaged in a war of words with the Democratic head of the CIA.
House members have a shark’s instinct for blood in the water and know full well that satisfying Pelosi is likely to be an unrewarding occupation.
With House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) waiting in the wings, few congressmen would be willing to treat the IOUs from Pelosi they get for casting difficult votes as worth much more than Confederate currency.
Remember that Pelosi won by only 118-95 in her election as Speaker. Her support was not overwhelming to begin with. She is a movement liberal. Her political antecedents come from the McGovern wing of the party. She is a leftist/reformer. An insurgent.
But Hoyer is a regular Democrat. Representing a district in the D.C. suburbs of Maryland, he is almost a civil servant himself. He is no radical.
While he can be counted on to pass Obama’s programs like a good Democrat, he is not the kind of guy who will get out in front of the president to upstage or pressure him.
He will fit right in, unobtrusively backing the president. (Full disclosure: He’s a former client. Very former.)
Above all, Obama cannot allow the distraction and disruption of a feud between Speaker and CIA head to sow the image of an administration at war with itself.
The Speaker is the hired help. She exists to serve her president. And, right now, he needs this fight like he needs a hole in the head.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!
From: Dick Morris Reports
Subject: WHY PELOSI MUST GO
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 2:20 PM
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 19, 2009 
Printer-Friendly Version
It’s obvious that either Leon Panetta, Obama’s head of the CIA, or Nancy Pelosi, his party’s Speaker of the House, has to go. No administration can tolerate a permanent, public civil war between two such high-ranking officials.
Especially when their disagreement stems not from issues of policy but from matters of veracity and credibility, the battle must end in one of their resignations. You cannot have the head of the nation’s first line of defense against terrorism calling the Speaker of the House a liar and being attacked by her in turn.
Obviously, Obama cannot fire Panetta. First of all, he just appointed him. And second, to cave in to Pelosi (D-Calif.) would earn him the massive disrespect and disapproval of the very operatives on whom he must depend to keep the nation safe.
 Already skeptical of his leftist credentials, the analysts at the CIA would regard it as a massive vote of no confidence if their chief were fired for believing in them.
Like Clinton — whose draft-dodging made his relationship with the military problematic — Obama takes office amid reservations about him on the part of the intelligence community. He has taken pains to reach out to both the uniformed and white-collar intelligence officials to smooth his way and win their trust.
Panetta took over as CIA chief under the cloud of his agency’s distrust of the man who appointed him. Now he is standing firm for his agency and winning its loyalty and support.
Obama cannot pull the rug out from under him without incurring the agency’s permanent animosity. Before Sept. 11, 2001, that may have been an acceptable risk. Now it is not.
But Pelosi is expendable. The job of a Democratic Speaker is to pass the program of the Democratic president. Her ability and track record is measured on a scale of effectiveness. If she is ineffective, she’s not up to the job.
There is no way that Nancy Pelosi can be effective while she is engaged in a war of words with the Democratic head of the CIA.
House members have a shark’s instinct for blood in the water and know full well that satisfying Pelosi is likely to be an unrewarding occupation.
With House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) waiting in the wings, few congressmen would be willing to treat the IOUs from Pelosi they get for casting difficult votes as worth much more than Confederate currency.
Remember that Pelosi won by only 118-95 in her election as Speaker. Her support was not overwhelming to begin with. She is a movement liberal. Her political antecedents come from the McGovern wing of the party. She is a leftist/reformer. An insurgent.
But Hoyer is a regular Democrat. Representing a district in the D.C. suburbs of Maryland, he is almost a civil servant himself. He is no radical.
While he can be counted on to pass Obama’s programs like a good Democrat, he is not the kind of guy who will get out in front of the president to upstage or pressure him.
He will fit right in, unobtrusively backing the president. (Full disclosure: He’s a former client. Very former.)
Above all, Obama cannot allow the distraction and disruption of a feud between Speaker and CIA head to sow the image of an administration at war with itself.
The Speaker is the hired help. She exists to serve her president. And, right now, he needs this fight like he needs a hole in the head.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!

Outlawing Opinion

May 22, 2009

OP/ED: Outlawing Opinion
By Chuck Norris
It greatly alarms me that Americans’ constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.
    Several years ago, I watched then-20/20 correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics.
    Surprisingly naive of America’s constitutional basis, Saddam asked, “Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?” (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -and somewhat at a loss for words herself – Diane quipped back in answering his question, “They host television talk shows!” Saddam’s facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.
    Sounds so far-out, doesn’t it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track – a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.
    For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.” While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.
    If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: “Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.”
    The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents’ Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function?
    When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine – which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation — is right around the corner.
    Government isn’t the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean’s – who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up – giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions she’s been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.
    I don’t care what your cause is. I don’t care what your mission is. I don’t care what the issue is. I don’t care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen’s constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone’s offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?
    It’s simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam’s Iraq!
    When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we’ve drifted from our roots. Isn’t it time we returned home to the Constitution?

OP/ED: Outlawing Opinion

By Chuck Norris

It greatly alarms me that Americans’ constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.

    Several years ago, I watched then-20/20 correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics.

    Surprisingly naive of America’s constitutional basis, Saddam asked, “Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?” (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -and somewhat at a loss for words herself – Diane quipped back in answering his question, “They host television talk shows!” Saddam’s facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.

    Sounds so far-out, doesn’t it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track – a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.

    For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.” While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.

    If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: “Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.”

    The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents’ Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function?

    When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine – which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation — is right around the corner.

    Government isn’t the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean’s – who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up – giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions she’s been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.

    I don’t care what your cause is. I don’t care what your mission is. I don’t care what the issue is. I don’t care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen’s constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone’s offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?

    It’s simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam’s Iraq!

    When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we’ve drifted from our roots. Isn’t it time we returned home to the Constitution?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

S 909 IS

 

 

111th CONGRESS

 

 

1st Session

 

 

S. 909

 

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

 

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

 

April 28, 2009

Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. REED, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DODD, Mr. BAYH, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. CASEY, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. AKAKA)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

 


 

A BILL

 

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act’.

     

 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  •  
    •  

        (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

         

        (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

         

        (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

         

        (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

         

        (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

         

    • (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

       

      (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

       

      (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

       

      (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

       

      (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

       

      (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

       

      (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

       

      (8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

       

      (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

       

      (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

       

  • Congress makes the following findings:

     

 

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

  •  

      (1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

       

      (2) the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994note); and

       

      (3) the term ‘local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

       

  • In this Act–

     

 

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

  •  
    •  

        (A) constitutes a crime of violence;

         

        (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

         

        (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

         

    • (1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that–

       

      (2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

       

    •  
      •  

          (i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

           

          (ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

           

          (iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

           

          (iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

           

      • (A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

         

        (B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

         

        (C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall–

         

    • (1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

       

      (2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

       

      (3) APPLICATION-

       

      (4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

       

      (5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

       

      (6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2010, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

       

      (7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

       

  • (a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

     

    (b) Grants-

     

 

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

     

    (b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

     

 

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

     

 

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

    (a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     

 

‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

  •  
    •  
      •  

          ‘(i) death results from the offense; or

           

          ‘(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

           

      • ‘(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

         

        ‘(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

         

      •  
        •  

            ‘(I) death results from the offense; or

             

            ‘(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

             

        • ‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

           

          ‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

           

        •  

            ‘(I) across a State line or national border; or

             

            ‘(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

             

            ‘(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

             

            ‘(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

             

        • ‘(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–

           

          ‘(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

           

          ‘(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

           

          ‘(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–

           

      • ‘(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person–

         

        ‘(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

         

    • ‘(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–

       

      ‘(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

       

      ‘(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

       

    •  

        ‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

         

        ‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

         

        ‘(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

         

        ‘(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

         

    • ‘(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that–

       

      ‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

       

      ‘(1) the term ‘bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

       

      ‘(2) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

       

      ‘(3) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

       

      ‘(4) the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.’.

       

      ‘249. Hate crime acts.’.

       

  • ‘(a) In General-

     

    ‘(b) Certification Requirement-

     

    ‘(c) Definitions- In this section–

     

    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     

 

SEC. 8. STATISTICS.

    (a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘gender and gender identity,’ after ‘race,’.

     

    (b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles’ after ‘data acquired under this section’.

     

 

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

    If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     

 

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

  •  

      (1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

       

      (2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

       

      (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.CommentsPermalink

       

      (4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

  • For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

     

 

Pelosi tries to backpedal on CIA criticism

May 16, 2009
Posted: 05/16/09 11:32 AM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has backed down slightly in her fight with the CIA, saying that she really meant only to criticize the Bush administration rather than career officials. 

“My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” Pelosi said in a statement.

Pelosi caused an uproar Thursday when she accused the CIA of lying to her about its use of waterboarding – which she considers torture – on terrorism suspects.

Her comment came after President Obama’s CIA director, Leon Panetta, challenged her version of events, insisting that his agency told her the truth in a controversial September 2002 briefing. 

Panetta, who served with Pelosi in Congress as a fellow California Democrat, had issued a memo to CIA staff Friday reiterating that agency records show “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'” according to CIA records.

“We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication,” Panetta said in the memo. “Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”

In her statement and answers Thursday, Pelosi had switched back and forth between criticizing the CIA and Bush administration officials. Republicans said she was unfairly criticizing non-political career officials doing the briefing when she claimed “they mislead us all the time.”

In what is so far the most difficult episode of her speakership, Pelosi is under fire about what she knew of the abusive interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration and when she knew it.

At the same news conference where she accused the CIA of misleading her on the topic, Pelosi acknowledged for the first time that she knew in 2003 that terrorism suspects were waterboarded. She said she learned that from an aide who sat in on a briefing in February 2003.

Republicans have called her a hypocrite for criticizing techniques as “torture” when she tacitly agreed to the practices after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. One lawmaker — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — called on Pelosi  Friday to step down as Speaker.

At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn’t push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn’t co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good.

“No letter could change the policy,” she said on May 14 at a news conference. “It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part.”

 

Is Nancy Pelosi’s speakership in trouble? Click here to join the discussion.

RELATED:

View the documents that detail which members were briefed on interrogation techniques
PANETTA: CIA director says Pelosi was told the truth 
AVOIDANCE: White House ducks Pelosi-CIA battle 
THE STORM: Pelosi deflects waterboarding criticism
PROBE: Lindsey Graham threatens to call speaker
NO. 2: Hoyer wants all the facts out  

 Read entire article here