A viral buzz is probably not something you want to have in these days of H1N1 (swine flu) paranoia.

But if you're Ann McElhinny and Phelim McAleer this week it's not a malady, but a desired condition. That's because Sunday marks the formal public introduction to their film documentary "Not Evil Just Wrong," which follows their 2006 joint effort "Mine Your Own Business." The plan was (and is) to generate enthusiasm and interest in a "premiere" for "Not Evil" via DVD sales, nudged along by Internet promotion and social networking. Purchasers had to promise to simultaneously host screenings and parties for friends and others who are interested in the movie's topic, which is to debunk global warming alarmism.

After unsuccessful efforts last year to raise funds for a massive theatrical rollout, the Internet plan shows signs of contagiousness. The Irish pair, married, can thank a fortuitous timing of events upon which they have been able to capitalize with some clever journalism.

McElhinny and McAleer first generated interest in their work in August, when they drew attention to a BBC interview with Gerd Leipold of Greenpeace, who admitted that a July 15 claim that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2030 was "a mistake" and defended the group's practice of "emotionalizing issues." It was a classic catch of environoiacs in their own excesses.

Then last month McAleer brought a microphone, a camera and a friend (to operate the camera, silly!) to environmentalist filmmaker Franny Armstrong's premiere of "The Age of Stupid," which like every other eco-doc, attracted current and former Hollywood celebrities like David Letterman lures interns. As McAleer noted in a blog post for Big Hollywood:

Much of the "Age Of Stupid" is spent attacking those in the developing world who want our lives and lifestyles. The documentary is particularly critical of those in countries such as India who want to fly more for business or pleasure.

The documentary is quite clear that flying in aeroplanes is disastrous for the planet. "Apart from setting fire to a forest flying is the single worst thing an individual can do to cause climate change," we are told.

So of course McAleer, who had gained press access to the "Stupid" event, showed up in New York as the celebrities and Armstrong walked the green carpet and asked them how they transported themselves to the premiere. It wasn't long before the "Stupid" security team realized he had no palatable questions, shut down his camera, and muscled McAleer far from the proceedings.

Apparently this only whetted his appetite for more interruption and rejection. Last Friday he jumped into the question line first after a speech by Al Gore at the annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists. McAleer then promptly asked about nine critical errors in Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," which a British court two years ago said must be righted before being shown in schools there. The former vice president has done nothing to correct the record, and McAleer asked, "Why?"

The "Stupid" security team may not have liked the challenging questions, but the media toadies who wanted to protect their green leader were downright afraid, so they also used their only defense mechanism: they turned off McAleer's microphone.

That was good and timely for the release of "Not Evil Just Wrong," since the high-traffic Drudge Report highlighted McAleer's exchange with Gore over the entire past weekend. That spurred more radio talk show and other media appearances earlier this week, including an unforgettable debate on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" between McAleer and Environmental Defense president Fred Krupp, who the Irishman reduced to nothing more than a "millionaire lawyer who calls himself an environmentalist."

So what about "Not Evil Just Wrong" as a film?

It effectively makes its points, which are to illustrate how global warming alarmism and its anti-fossil fuel agenda will harm poor countries and their people, because it reduces their access to cheaper, more efficient sources of energy. It makes a mockery of the scientific methods practiced by the climate fearmongers, especially the infamous and now-debunked Michael Mann and his "hockey stick" warming chart. It follows the life of a lower income family whose breadwinner's job is with a local coal-fired power plant, which provides them cheap energy and a higher standard of living.

And the film (as have others) likens the environmentalists' climate change hysteria to the Rachel Carson-inspired DDT ban on pesticides, responsible for millions of deaths in poor African countries. McElhinny and McAleer even interview a U.S. environmentalist working in Uganda, who can't bear the idea of promoting DDT use because of its threat to birds.

If it sounds like the movie jumps around a lot, it does. But that matches the personality and the passion of its filmmakers, and it is surprisingly effective. Best of all, it provides a truthful counterbalance to the award-winning documentary that Gore has yet to correct.

If you're not able to catch a premiere showing of "Not Evil Just Wrong" on Sunday night, that won't be the end of its availability. Watch it soon, and you might even be inspired to suggest it to your children's science teacher.


by Paul Chesser


on The American Spectator website 10/16/09

As it now stands, the health care reform plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration (the Baucus Bill) would not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse, says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).


For example:

The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees.

Nearly 90 percent of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.

It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40 percent tax on sales by insurers of "Cadillac" policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.


The economics are clear:

These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.

Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans; the Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87 percent of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.

Industry fees are even worse because Democrats chose to make these fees nondeductible, explains Holtz-Eakin:

This means that insurance companies will have to raise premiums significantly just to break even. American families will bear a burden even greater than the $130 billion in fees that the bill intends to collect.

Premiums will rise by as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years -- and 90 percent will again fall on the middle class.


Senate Democrats are also erecting new barriers to middle-class ascent:

A family of four making $54,000 would pay $4,800 for health insurance, with the remainder coming from subsidies.

If they work harder and raise their income to $66,000, their cost of insurance rises by $2,800.

In other words, earning another $12,000 raises their bill by $2,800 -- a marginal tax rate of 23 percent.

Double-digit increases in effective tax rates will have detrimental effects on the incentives of millions of Americans.


by Douglas Holtz-Eakin from the NCPA website 10/15/09


For full story:

THE BAUCUS BILL IS A TAX BILL

Where are the self-styled consumer champions when you need them? The ones who comb out every nit lurking in the fine print of mortgages, car loans and leases. The ones who want to list every ingredient on cereal boxes and restaurant menus.

The American public is about to be dealt the largest-ever package of consumer products and services whose fine print runs on for hundreds of pages, but consumers are being given little time to comprehend the particulars. I guess it doesn't matter because consumers will have little choice but to agree to the terms dictated to them.

Welcome to the health care "reform" law about to be inflicted on Americans by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats. You'll recall that Obama had insisted that the law be ready for his signature in early August, a request so outrageous -- considering the volume of the detail that had to be considered -- that now it seems laughable.

Even with an extra two months to consider the various forms of the legislation, the president and Democrats still are hotfooting it to foist something on a public that has little chance of vetting thousands of pages of legalese. The House bill is more than 1,000 pages. In the Senate, a committee vote could come Tuesday on a bill that isn't in writing yet, so there isn't any fine print to examine.

The Senate legislation is embodied in something called the "chairman's mark," which is a synopsis of the bill. It originally was a 220-page document, drawn up under the auspices of the Senate Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus, D-Mont. Detailed language will come later.

Why all the haste? Why not a full debate on the fine print? Because Obama and the Democrats don't really want Americans to fully comprehend what's in the bill. Obama and the Democrats are pulling a hustle every bit as gigantic as the most greedy, unconscionable scam ever pulled by corporate thieves.

Still, Democrats can't hide everything. Go to pages 80 and 81 of the chairman's mark and you'll find in a weed patch choked with "PQUIs," "CMSs" and other incomprehensible initials some obfuscation that its critics call the "death spiral."

It reads: "Beginning in 2015, (Medicare) payment (to physicians) would be reduced by 5 percent if an aggregation of the physician's resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization. After five years, the (health and human services) secretary would have the authority to convert the 90th percentile threshold for payment reductions to a standard measure of utilization, such as deviations from the national mean."

Let's see if I can put this verbiage into English. If you're an oncologist with a heavy load of breast cancer patients requiring expensive tests and treatments, the cost of what you are authorizing could far exceed what the average general practitioner authorized for his healthier Medicare patient caseload. If what you prescribe is in the upper 10 percentile of per capita Medicare costs, you'll automatically lose 5 percent of your Medicare reimbursements.

Notice, there's no consideration made for quality of care or results. You may be prescribing the most effective and efficient care, but that doesn't count. Notice also that, since some physicians always will end up in the top 10 percentile (it's like teachers who grade on the curve, thus ensuring that someone always fails) the pressure on doctors to reduce costs would be constant. Thus, the death spiral.

David N. O'Steen, executive director of National Right to Life Committee, which opposes the provision, said it shifts the bad guy role from government bureaucrats to physicians. "Instead of bureaucrats directly specifying the treatment denials that will mean death and poorer health for older people, it compels individual doctors to do the dirty work."

You may or may not agree with this assessment, but it's unlikely you know about this provision since it has received so little media attention. In a private-sector hustle you can read the fine print and, more important, you don't have to buy. When the snake oil salesman pulls into town, you can ignore him. Not so with the Obama and Democratic health care schemes. Whether you like it or not, you'll be signed up.


by Dennis Byrne


Originally on Chicago Tribune website 10/13/09

Today, the Senate Finance Committee will hold a key vote on what has become known as the Baucus bill. Like most Texans, I believe that our health care system needs reform. Millions of families have seen the cost of their private insurance skyrocket. Many are worried about losing their coverage altogether. Seniors are concerned about the future of Medicare. Texans have told me that they want to keep the coverage they have and don't want Washington to make things even worse.

I believe health care reform should focus on lowering costs, which have more than doubled over the past decade. We can lower costs by realigning incentives for providers, so they focus on value instead of volume. We can create incentives for patients to make healthier choices. We can reform the private insurance market in every state to encourage greater competition and more choices, without denying anyone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. We can lower costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our current entitlement programs. And we can reduce costly defensive medicine by reforming our medical liability laws like we've done in Texas.

The Baucus bill, unfortunately, will only increase costs for everyone. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill will cost $829 billion, but when it's fully implemented, the Senate Budget Committee estimates the real cost to be $1.8 trillion. Either way, it would still leave 25 million Americans uninsured, impose billions of dollars in new taxes and mandates, and cut more than $400 billion from Medicare. It would take away Medicare Advantage benefits from seniors, and make Medicaid the only option for 14 million Americans.

The bill also imposes hidden costs on states. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimates that the Baucus bill would cost Texas more than $20 billion over 10 years and add 2.5 million Texans to Medicaid. That would mean billions in new state taxes, or draconian cuts in education, law enforcement and other Texas priorities. According to one survey, 91 percent of Texans who buy insurance in the individual market will see their premiums go up because Washington will force them to buy more expensive policies.

My colleagues and I offered several amendments that would have improved the bill. We fought to protect Medicare Advantage, and eliminate the Medicare panel that would empower bureaucrats to make coverage decisions. We tried to reform Medicaid before forcing more Americans into it. We sought to lower costs on small businesses, and enact meaningful medical liability reform. Many of our amendments would have helped President Obama keep his promises to the American people, including those related to keeping what you have, taxes on the middle class, federal funding of abortions, and benefits to illegal immigrants. Yet most of these amendments were rejected on party-line votes.

Perhaps most discouraging was the defeat of the first amendment Republicans offered to ensure a more transparent process. Sen. Jim Bunning and I proposed a 72-hour waiting period before we could vote on the bill. During those 72 hours, the actual legislative text, not just conceptual language, would have been available on the committee's website for the public to see, as well as a final price tag from the CBO. Instead we will vote on a concept, not the actual bill.

I cannot support legislation being rushed through Congress that will increase the costs of health care without giving Texans the opportunity to learn what it would mean for them. Democracy demands that government be accountable to the people, and government that is open and honest can deliver better solutions. I will continue working toward better solutions on health care reform and ensure your voice is heard.


by Senator John Cornyn (Texas)


Emailed to me 10/13/09

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.


Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.


by Paul Hudson


Climate correspondent, BBC News on 10/9/09

With the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the importance of the Second Amendment will once again be at the forefront of debate across the Country. I thought this would be a good time to talk a little about the Second Amendment and what it means to me and to all of us who love America.

The Second Amendment is very brief and pretty simple. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Let's be very clear about what the Second Amendment is not. It is not about hunting. When I hear politicians talk about hunting and guns, I know that they do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. The founding fathers weren't worried about our being able to bag a duck or a deer; they were worried about our keeping our fundamental freedoms. The Second Amendment is about our freedom, about protecting ourselves and having the capability to defend ourselves, our family, our property and our nation.

I believe that the intent of our Founding Fathers is evident. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government, if need be, and from all threats to our lives and property. Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. Gun owners should control guns, not the government. Our founding fathers were worried that even with the checks and balances they built into our system of government, that system could fail, and we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government.

That is why they they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope. Ronald Reagan had it exactly right when he said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren't inalienable, they're just "on loan" from the government.


by Mike Huckabee

Finally the question was asked. This week on ABC (better known as the All Barack Channel) during the "network special on health care" Obama was asked, "Mr. President, will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new "universal health care program" that the rest of us will be on?

There was a stoney silence as Obama ignored the question and choose not to answer it.

Then a number of senators were asked the same question and their response was, "We'll think about it".

While thinking about it, it was announced that the "Kennedy health care bill" was written into the new health care bill, ensuring that they will be 100% exempt from it.

So this great new health care bill that is good for you and me... is not good enough for Obama, his family or the congress?

$506 BILLION of the proposed bill will be paid by us in new taxes. Of course the bill is not done, the Dems say they will add the public option before it's over which will probably bring the cost to $1 TRILLION +.

This is just wrong. We The People need to stop this debacle now. If not, plan to suffer with the new plan while our self-serving polititians make sure they take care of themselves at our expense.

While our media sleep, the United Nations is proceeding, with President Obama's acquiescence, to implement a global plan to create a new international socialist order financed by global taxes on the American people.

The United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development, held June 24-26, adopted a document calling for "new voluntary and innovative sources of financing initiatives to provide additional stable sources of development finance..." This is U.N.-speak for global taxes. They are anything but "voluntary" for the people forced to pay them.

The most "popular" proposals, which could generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue for global purposes, involve taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and financial transactions such as stock trades.

While the "outcome document" was watered down somewhat from the previous version, it still reaffirms attainment of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals, which would require the payment of $845 billion from U.S. taxpayers. A commitment to the MDGs was a stated objective of the Global Poverty Act, which Barack Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator. It requires the U.S. to devote 0.7 percent of Gross National Income to foreign aid.

Now, as President, Obama can bypass the Congress and simply direct his Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice to approve the U.N. conference document. Then the pressure will be increased on Congress to come up with the money and satisfy our "international commitments."  

This is the pattern that he followed in regard to more money for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). After agreeing at the G-20 summit to provide more money for the IMF, the Obama White House slipped the cash and credit into the recently passed emergency war funding bill. The Obama White House had added billions in cash, as well as a $100 billion line of credit, for the IMF.

Rep. Mike Pence commented, "This legislation, which includes $108 billion in loan authorizations for a global bailout, for the International Monetary Fund - at a time when this government has run up a $2 trillion annual deficit-I believe does a disservice to taxpayers and to those that defend us. Passing a $108 billion global bailout on the backs of our soldiers is just not right."

The U.N. conference document explains where all of this is leading - the destruction of the American dollar as the world's reserve currency and the build-up of global institutions such as the IMF and the U.N.

It declares that "We acknowledge the calls by many states for further study of the feasibility and advisability of a more efficient reserve system, including the possible function of SDRs in any such system and the complementary roles that could be played by various regional

arrangements." SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a form of international currency that enables global institutions like the International Monetary Fund to provide more foreign aid to the rest of the world. The U.S. pays for SDRs through its financial contributions to the IMF.

If implemented, the document would officially mark the end of the United States as the world's leading economic power.

Urging socialism as the solution to the crisis, the document states that "Insufficient emphasis on equitable human development has contributed to significant inequalities among countries and peoples. Other weaknesses of a systemic nature also contributed to the unfolding crisis, which has demonstrated the need for more effective government involvement to ensure an appropriate balance between the market and public interest."

The nerve center of this emerging new international socialist system will be the United Nations, a body that has developed a reputation for corruption and incompetence and whose "peacekeepers" have been implicated in sexual abuse and other human rights violations.

"The United Nations, on the basis of its universal membership and legitimacy, is well positioned to participate in various reform processes aimed at improving and strengthening the effective functioning of the international financial system and architecture," the document says. "This United Nations Conference is part of our collective effort towards recovery," it adds.

The Obama Administration's unofficial point man in U.N. deliberations has been economist Joseph Stiglitz, who has been coordinating a "Commission of Experts" that has reported to U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto, the notorious Communist Catholic Priest who received the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union. Stiglitz produced his own document which called for "the issuance of additional SDRs," "additional sources of funding" for global institutions, a new global reserve currency, and a new global credit facility. Key recommendations have been incorporated into the official U.N. conference document but Stiglitz and his "experts" provide far more details about them.

In terms of new funding sources, the document calls for "innovative sources of financing such as emission rights trading and financial transactions taxes..." The concept of "emissions trading" enables corporations to avoid limits on greenhouse gas emissions if they pay taxes to government. It is part of the "cap and trade" legislation that the liberals are now pushing on Capitol Hill. 

Chapter Five of this document, "International Financial Innovations," goes into detail, declaring that "For some time, the difficulty in meeting the UN official assistance target of 0.7 percent of Gross National Income of developed industrial countries as official development assistance, as well as the need for adequate funding for the provision of global and regional public goods (peace building, fighting global health pandemics, combating climate change and sustaining the global environment more generally) has generated proposals on how to guarantee a more reliable and stable source of financing for these objectives."

The document notes that an international airline ticket tax is now in effect, as a result of the actions of the "Leading Group on Solidarity Levies" that now involves close to 60 countries and major international organizations. This money is going to fight global diseases. The term "Solidarity Levies" is U.N.-speak for global taxes.

The Stiglitz document explains, "Some of the initiatives that have been proposed encompass 'solidarity levies' or, more generally, taxation for global objectives. Some countries have already decreed solidarity levies on airline tickets but there is a larger set of proposals. There have also been suggestions to auction global natural resources-such as ocean fishing rights and pollution emission permits-for global environmental programs." It goes on to say, "The suggestion of taxes that could be earmarked for global objectives has a long history. To avert their being perceived as encroachments on participating countries' fiscal sovereignty, it has been agreed that these taxes should be nationally imposed, but internationally coordinated."

Miguel D'Escoto, the President of the U.N. General Assembly, declared that "There is a growing awareness that we are all sons and daughters of Earth and that we belong to her." He urged "a planetary civilization" that is "more respectful of Mother Earth, more inclusive of all people and with more solidarity with the poorest, which is more spiritual and full of reverence for the splendor of the universe and which is much happier."

D'Escoto, who was suspended from his priestly functions by the anti-communist Pope John Paul II, is an advocate of Marxist-oriented Liberation Theology and received the Lenin Peace Prize.

He said the U.N. must become a Noah's Ark to save humanity.

D'Escoto is the same U.N. figure who recently dismissed the Iranian president's threat to wipe Israel off the map by saying, "Words don't kill."

But words do mean something, and D'Escoto masked his call for global socialism in fancy and flowery words and phrases. He made it clear with his talk of protecting "Mother Earth" that environmentalism would be the ticket to the creation of the new international socialist order. 

D'Escoto declared that "We still need to recognize that the globalized means of production, in their industrial voracity, have in large measure devastated the Earth and thus have also damaged the common good of Earth and humanity. We must urgently seek other paths that are more humane and more favorable towards life: the paths of justice and solidarity which lead to peace and happiness."

Capitalism cannot be reformed, he said, adding that "...controls and corrections of the existing model, while undoubtedly necessary, are insufficient in the medium and long term. Their inherent ability to address the global crisis has proven to be weak. Stopping at controls and corrections of the model would demonstrate a cruel lack of social sensitivity, imagination and commitment to the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Egotism and greed cannot be corrected. They must be replaced by solidarity, which obviously implies radical change. If what we really want is a stable and lasting peace, it must be absolutely clear that we must go beyond controls and corrections of the existing model to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence." The solution, he went on, involves the affirmation of a "global ethic" for "safeguarding the common good of the Earth and humanity."

He explained, "We will start with the assumption that the community of peoples is simultaneously a community of common goods. These cannot be appropriated privately by anyone and must serve the life of all in present and future generations and the community of other living beings."

The reference to being "appropriated privately" was, of course, a dig at global capitalism and the concept of private property. If we don't replace capitalism with international socialism, he said that "we could arrive at the same destiny which has already befallen the dinosaurs."

In fact, Soviet-style communism went the way of the dinosaurs but its adherents, such as D'Escoto, are very much alive, and working with the Obama administration through the U.N. That was evident in the opening remarks to the conference provided by Obama's very good friend and close adviser, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice.

She said that the United States had "placed the highest priority" on the conference and that "President Obama understands that our collective response to the crisis will make up an important moment in world history." Committing to more foreign aid from hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers, Rice went on to say that "the United States understands that we have an economic, security, and moral obligation to extend a hand to the countries and the people who face the greatest risks today. That is why we have supported substantial increases in resources to boost the emergency lending capacity of the IMF. That is why we have backed increases to help regional development banks accelerate lending of their own.

The theme of a new international socialist order was predictably echoed by Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz of Communist Cuba, who said that the U.N. conference "must define the mandates, duties, governance structure, and management procedures of the new international monetary and financial institutions" that are supposed to come into being.

Making it clear that the U.S. would lose its sovereignty and standing in this process, he added that "...it must lead us to a pattern of monetary reference not depending on the economic stability, legislation or political decisions of only one country." He called for "an international economic order based on sustainable development and the generation of wealth on the basis of justice." This new system will have institutions "subordinated to the United Nations system," he said.

Almost as bizarre as some of the opening remarks, the United Nations University has produced a special "conversation series" in connection with the conference with such notables as American leftist Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader of the Communist Party spin-off group, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. The United Nations University describes Chomsky as being among "the most important intellectual and policy voices from around the globe."
The "conversation" with Chomsky consists of links to his various media appearances, including on the far-left "Democracy Now!" radio program hosted by Amy Goodman, and Iranian television.


Originally posted on America's Survival website, date unknown

A conservative commentator and author says a recent Senate committee vote "puts the lie to" President Obama's and Democrats' assertion that illegal aliens won't be eligible for coverage under their healthcare plan.

In his speech to Congress last month, President Obama said claims that his healthcare plan would allow coverage to illegal immigrants and taxpayer-funded abortions were "false" and a "misunderstanding" perpetuated by his opponents.

However, in the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday -- by near party-line votes -- Democrats rejected separate amendments that would have prohibited federal funding of abortion and required people to prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for health insurance or tax credits under healthcare reform.

Phil Kent, national spokesman for Americans for Immigration Control, calls Democrats' vote against the ID requirement "shocking" and a move that defied common sense.

"It shows again that the Democrats are not being honest with the American people," Kent asserts. "Furthermore, it shows the disconnect between these Democrats and what polls show.

"Polls show consistently that 90 percent of the American people -- Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, black, white, Anglo, Hispanic -- oppose illegal immigration and oppose healthcare benefits for illegal immigrants."

Kent believes the political left wants to "coddle" illegal aliens in order to use them as a pawn to achieve their socialist agenda. "They see them as the final way to change America, to turn it into a socialist country," he states. "They want these people getting services, they want them on a path to citizenship, they want them voting."

According to Kent, illegal immigrants -- in the main -- are part of an "underclass."

"They make less than $10,000 a year, they have less than an eighth-grade education, [and] they can be swayed by every left-wing demagogue that comes down the pike with any promise whatsoever," he says. "[And] they will be outvoting middle America."


by Jim Brown


Originally posted on OneNewsNow 10/2/09

Quick: Think of the last American economic recession, or even depression, from which we didn’t recover.

Obviously, no such example exists.

Our capitalist, free-market economic system has created more prosperity and human innovation than any other economic system ever conceived or implemented by humanity. The tradeoff, of course, is that market economies encounter occasional downturns, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill, “it’s the worst economic system ever created – except for all of the others.”

By way of comparison, socialist economies are relatively immune from these cyclical downturns, but only at the catastrophic cost of miserable levels of wealth and human comfort. One need only recall the food shortages in the former Soviet Union, or the 1950s-era automobiles decaying on the streets of Havana, Cuba, to conceptualize that tradeoff. The simple fact is that although economic downturns naturally occur in a market economy, economic recoveries also occur naturally and lead to ever-increasing levels of prosperity and growth.

Unless, of course, government unwisely interferes and stifles that natural recovery process.

For example, the misguided efforts by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to engage in trade protectionism, tax increases and greater government regulation only exacerbated and perpetuated the Great Depression. As a consequence, it lasted longer and created more damage than previous American depressions from which we had recovered naturally.

Despite these realities, Barack Obama and his apologists now conveniently claim credit for stabilization of the downturn, as if the downturn would have otherwise continued into perpetuity. In this way, he is like the proverbial rooster who claims credit for the sunrise.

The reality, however, is very different and potentially alarming.

In their essay “The Stimulus Didn’t Work,” economists John F. Cogan, John B. Taylor and Volker Wieland demonstrate that Obama’s scheme failed in its intended purpose. Six months after his $787 billion proposal passed, they have shown the absence of any “noticeable impact on personal consumption expenditures,” because “temporary changes in income have little effect on consumption.” They also show that the modest gross domestic product (GDP) stabilization began in the first quarter of 2009, before the “stimulus” bill took effect.

They further note that subsequent stabilization between the first and second quarters of 2009 was primarily due to defense spending that was not part of Obama’s $787 billion behemoth.

Their study, of course, confirms what Americans had already begun to realize when unemployment rose to 9.7%, despite Obama’s confident promise that it would top out at 8% if his “stimulus” bill passed.

Notwithstanding these realities, one of the more visible signs of economic stabilization to which Obama points is the stock market, which has surged 46% since its March depths. But it is sobering to realize that every previous market recovery of that extent occurred during the 1930s or 1970s, periods of prolonged malaise. The market rallied 48% between 1929 and 1930, it nearly tripled between 1932 and 1933 and it rose 76% in 1974.

Economists’ consensus is that GDP growth will slow in the fourth quarter due to a “sugar high” effect of third quarter GDP growth. This is a troubling sign, because growth at this point in an economic cycle (the recession began in late 2007) should be far more robust and prospective.

The Federal Reserve will likely raise interest rates fairly soon to avoid runaway inflation following Obama’s reckless spending, which will dampen economic growth. Additionally, consumer confidence unexpectedly dropped this week, as did durable goods orders. This is a troubling sign, because “people want to be optimistic and want to be positive,” as noted by analyst Kent Croft of the Croft Value Fund. Further, business starts, which are a signal of future economic optimism, have fallen more steeply than in previous recessions.

Even more ominously, however, Obama’s broader fiscal irresponsibility may be stealing future economic growth.

After all, the trillions of dollars that he has spent or plans to spend must come from either higher taxes, even more borrowing, printing of money or some combination thereof. None of these options is a recipe for economic growth, but rather acts as a deadweight.

Wreaking further havoc, Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress stand poised to drastically increase taxes (whether by foolishly allowing the 2003 tax cuts to expire, through carbon cap-and-tax legislation, healthcare taxes, etc.), regulatory burdens, the stranglehold of Big Labor, trade protectionism and unprecedented deficit spending.

Accordingly, far from claiming undeserved glory for the economy’s natural stabilization tendency, Barack Obama should stop and consider the potentially catastrophic damage his policies will inflict upon future prosperity.


by Timothy H. Lee


Originally posted on CFIF.org 9/30/09

Barack Obama has nominated far-left homosexual rights advocate Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) - a move that makes Congress' new push to pass the anti-faith ENDA bill even more dangerous to the rights of Christians.

Consider this...

Not only is Feldblum a former legal counsel for the ACLU and the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign, she is a CO-AUTHOR of the ENDA bill that she could soon be enforcing!

And what is Feldblum's agenda? Incredibly, Feldblum says that when there is a conflict between religious freedom and homosexual rights, "...society should come down on the side of protecting identity liberty of LGBT people" (LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered).

In this view, YOUR religious beliefs will take second place to someone else's desire for aberrant sexual activities or gender changes!

She opposed Liberty Counsel's case in which we represented a Christian couple who owned a bed and breakfast in Vermont and who refused to participate in a same-sex union ceremony in their own home.

Feldblum stated: "Thus, for all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe an inevitable choice between liberties must come into play. In making that choice, I believe society should come down on the side of protecting identity liberty of LGBT people." Unbelievable!

In Feldblum's desired workplace, Bob the receptionist can wear a dress and lipstick to work and designate his restroom of choice, yet the owner of the business - even a Christian business owner - will not be able to say a thing about it!

If this latest Obama nominee has her way, even the Boy Scouts would not be able to protect its young members from contact with openly homosexual leaders...

Feldblum is on record as saying that the Boy Scouts should not have won their case at the United States Supreme Court that affirmed their right to free association.

Feldblum and ENDA will put every employee, business owners and even churches and non-profit ministries on the wrong side of the law.

The nomination of Chai Feldblum makes the ENDA battle in Congress even more critical. If she is confirmed and ENDA is passed, we should brace ourselves for the most radical, anti-faith interpretation of this bill that is even possible.


by Mathew Staver


Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel on 9/29/09

The Senate Finance Committee is currently in recess until tomorrow (Tuesday) morning at 9:30, when it is expected they will begin to move what Sen. Mitch McConnell calls "a trillion - dollar experiment that cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and threatens the health care options that millions of Americans enjoy."

A look at the amendments that were shot-down late last week should serve as warning that unless citizens--and especially seniors get involved it stands to get much worse.

Last Friday morning, Sen. Jon Kyl offered up an amendment prohibiting the federal government from limiting consumer choice. His amendment failed 9-14.

With the influx of amendments and changes to the bill, Sen. John Cornyn wanted the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to re-score it for accuracy. His amendment failed 11-12.

Sen. John Ensign's amendment that any "czar" handling health care issues shall be subjected to the Senate confirmation process also failed 10-13.

From just these failed amendments, alone it's clear that this administration isn't interested in free market solutions, or our rights to choose what plan fits our personal needs.

They aren't interested in accountability and transparency, or in working within the delicate balance of power created by the constitution. Instead, they are willing to use a health czar if need be to skirt the checks and balances!

Everything about this plan is corrupt. Everything about this plan is designed to increase the federal government's control and power over you and I.

And the ones who stand to lose the most?

Senior citizens will endure reduced benefits and fewer choices.

Working families who will see a sharp rise in insurance premiums (upwards of $4,500 for a family of four), and steep tax increases.

Small businesses will shoulder the burden of more than $420 billion in new taxes -- hamstringing growth and slowing the economy even further.

This is not a plan for America, and as Americans it is our responsibility to tell lawmakers in Washington as much.

We can't allow Congress to hash out the details of this complicated plan without being involved--every painful step of the way.

NOW is the time to take action with citizens like you who stand to take the hardest hit in this ill-conceived ObamaCare plan.

Flood Congressional Phone Lines!

We are entering a critical stage of the ObamaCare plan, and a daily deluge of phone calls pouring into Congressional offices is what I'm asking for right now.

Pick up your phone right now and call your three members of Congress, and tell them you don't support this trillion - dollar healthcare experiment that will steal away our right to choose, ration care for the elderly and pass along the cost to the working class in America!


by Steve Elliot


President, Grassfire.org Alliance

So after witnessing the waves of antipathy across the country toward President Obama's policies, New York Times writer Charles Blow introduces his readers to the term: "aversive racism."


It's a sinister kind of prejudice, Blow explains, that reveals itself in disagreements based on factors "other than race."

A simpler definition of aversive racism: If you say it's not about race, then it's really about race.

See: If you're against socialized medicine, it's really because our president — who's for it — is black. If you're against the redistribution of wealth, it's because Obama is black. If you believe global warming dogma is hypothetical hooey, that belief is now racist, since Obama buys into climate change hysteria.

So everything you believe in, is now proof you're a bigot.

And that's why aversive racism might be the greatest invention ever for the left, because it exempts them defending their own screwy beliefs. If you disagree with any worn-out or destructive progressive idea, then you must be a hood-wearing hater. It's the lowdown trick to end all lowdown tricks and it gives the left what it so desperately needs: Immunity for their reviled beliefs.

As a rightie, to me black liberals and white liberals are all just liberals. But it's different on the left. Progressives hate conservatives, but they hate black conservatives more. They hate right wingers, but they hate Hispanic right wingers more. They hate Republicans, but they hate female Republicans more.

This intolerance, which is directed at people different from themselves, reflects the reverse of aversive racism: real racism.

And if you disagree with me, then you're most definitely a racist.


by Greg Gutfeld


Originally posted on the Fox News website on 9/23/09

Multiculturalism: California's educrats have put out new rules for teaching Islamic studies to seventh-graders in public schools, and they are as biased as ever. They'll also likely spread eastward.

The lesson guidelines adopted by the bellwether state whitewash the violence and oppression of women codified in Islamic law, or Shariah. And they're loaded with revisionist history about the faith.

For example, the suggested framework glorifies Shariah as a liberal reform movement that "rejected" the mistreatment of women that existed in Arabia before Muhammad and his successors conquered the region, according to Accuracy in Academia. The guidelines claim that Islamic law established for the first time that men and women were entitled to equal "respect."

Not so, says Islamic scholar and author Nonie Darwish, who grew up Muslim in Egypt.

"I am shocked that that is what they teach," she said. "Women had more rights in Arabia before Shariah."

In fact, "wife beating is allowed under Shariah" today, she added. "It allows a woman seen without a headdress to be flogged, punishes rape victims, and calls for beheading for adultery."

California's course on world religions also omits Islam's long history of jihadist violence, while portraying Christianity as an intolerant and bloodthirsty faith.

Christianity isn't given equal time, either. It's covered in just two days — as opposed to up to two weeks for Islam — and doesn't involve kids in any role-playing activities like the Islam unit.

Students do get a healthy dose of skepticism about the Christian faith, including a biting history of its persecution of other people.

Islam, in contrast, gets a pass from critical review. Even jihad is presented as an "internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation," not waging holy war.

"California schools are pushing an unbalanced religious agenda that favors Islam and minimizes Christianity and Judaism," Accuracy in Academia warns in its latest Campus Report.

Who helped build the California Education Department's framework for Islamic studies? Islamist "scholars" with the Council on Islamic Education, or CIE, a Saudi-tied activist group.

The consultancy changed its name after former IBD Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington," exposed that its chief researcher and textbook consultant for years taught social studies at a Saudi madrassa just outside Washington.

The Islamic Saudi Academy is a breeding ground for terrorists, including the valedictorian-turned-al-Qaida agent recently sentenced to life for plotting to assassinate President Bush.

Recently, Fox News reported that the head of CIE — now known as the Institute on Religion and Civic Values — misled California education authorities about his academic credentials. For one, Shabbir Mansuri never received a USC degree in chemical engineering as he has claimed, Fox says.

The group's Web site no longer includes the claim. These are the folks who are teaching your children about Islam in public schools. Parents have protested, even sued, but to no avail.

For example, parents of seventh-graders in the San Francisco area, who after 9/11 were taught pro-Islamic lessons as part of California's world history curriculum, sued under the First Amendment ban on religious establishment.

They argued, reasonably, that the government was promoting Islam by mandating that their kids participate in Muslim role-playing exercises such as designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.

Children also were told to recite aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful," and memorize the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God, and Muhammad is his messenger."

But a federal judge appointed by President Clinton told parents in so many words to get over it, that the state was merely teaching kids about another "culture."

California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, ruling that it was OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises.

The decision was a major victory for the multiculturalists and Islamic apologists in California and across the country who've never met a culture or religion they didn't like — with the exception of Western civilization and Christianity.

You can't teach the Ten Commandments in public schools. But teaching the five pillars of Islam is A-OK.


Originally posted on Investor's Business Daily website on 9/24/09

Eight months into the Obama presidency – as cap and trade languishes in the Congress, health care reform suffers the slings and arrows of a “racist,” “astroturf” opposition and Americans continue to stubbornly cling to their guns and religion – it’s hard to give much credence to the President’s election night pronouncement that “change has come to America.”

It was always a shallow notion. Saying that voters who elect an opposition party want “change” is like saying that restaurant patrons want food. It may be true, but it tells you nothing specific about what you need to do to satisfy that desire.

Improbably enough, it turns out that Americans still think that freedom is more important than irredeemable promises of security. They still think that constitutional limits mean something. And they still think that a federal government that does little more than defend our shores and deliver the mail is (at least half) a good idea.

But if change hasn’t yet come to America, it has certainly been felt in the nations that never had the pleasure of casting a ballot for Barack Obama.

Let’s turn first to Latin America. There, the President has gone to great lengths to pacify Castro’s Cuba, even pushing for the island nation’s entrance into the Organization of American States despite its long history of human rights abuses. He has embraced Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as a friend despite the dictator’s continued attempts to partner with other rogue nations and his forceful suppression of the country’s free press. And he has cast his lot with an exiled Honduran president who sought to use Chavez-style tactics to systematically dismantle the Central American nation’s constitution.

In Europe, the President’s track record doesn’t look much better. He has revoked the protection of missile defense that he promised to the people of Poland and the Czech Republic as recently as six months ago, giving newfound courage to a rapidly weaponizing Iran and a revanchist Russia. He has needled our allies in Germany and France about adopting economic stimulus plans that look like his own while ignoring that our friends in Western Europe are actually enjoying a quicker economic recovery in the wake of their decision to act with fiscal prudence. And he has touted the glories of Russia’s claim to “great power” status while dismissing American exceptionalism as mindless political chauvinism.

In the Middle East, Obama has handled the Israeli government so roughly that his popularity ratings are in the single digits amongst the population of one of America’s most evergreen allies. He has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the most dramatic act of civic revolt against Iran’s vicious theocracy in decades. And he has intentionally obscured the needs of American forces in Afghanistan in order to delay a tough political decision.

Finally, in Asia, President Obama has rewarded the North Korean regime for sentencing two American journalists to 12 years of hard labor by giving a fading Kim Jong Il a photo-op with a former president. He has virtually ignored our allies in India despite that nation’s vital role in ensuring a peaceful future for the continent. And he has fundamentally shaken the faith of the Chinese in an economic partnership with the U.S. by laying the predicate for a dramatic weakening of the dollar and imposing stiff tariffs on tires – tariffs that are already precariously close to launching a trade war.

As many of Obama’s critics noted during the 2008 campaign, “change” is an amoral word. Taken alone, it neither instructs nor illuminates. A fair conjecture about voters’ intentions in sending Obama to the White House would probably conclude that what the American people wanted was a change from a collapsing economic system; a change from unsustainable (and at times unclear) wars; and a change from the cynical standards that dominate Washington.

But on the foreign policy front at least, what Obama has delivered is a change from remaining strong against America’s enemies; a change from standing firmly beside our allies, and a change from recognizing that the rights of individuals supersede the rights of governments. In short, he has abandoned the moral imperatives of American foreign policy. It turns out he’s changed one more thing too. The old status quo is starting to look a lot better by comparison.


by Troy Senik


Originally posted on the Center For Individual Freedom website on 9/24/09

1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. According to the New York Times: I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith, Ms Obama, 85, said in a recent interview in Kenya." Not to mention, Christianity would not allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and Baraka (from which Barack came) means blessed in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons?

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies. You seek to disarm America while our avowed enemy, Iran, will not subject itself to a nuclear ban. Top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the Hamas terrorist group, "supports Obamas foreign policy vision".

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book . It doesnt, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesnt, and never did, exist.

15.) I Wont Run On A National Ticket In ~08 - LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois - LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - LIAR, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn’t write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel. You state you will open friendly communication with the Leader of Iran who is attempting to develop nuclear weapons to destroy us, but refuse to speak to FOX news. You are against provisions of the Patriot act which would end all wiretapping of the phones of suspected terrorists in the USA.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet - LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.

31.) I Didnt Run Ads In Florida - LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

32.) I won Michigan - LIAR, no you did not.

33.) I won Nevada - LIAR, no you did not.

34.) I Want All Votes To Count - LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.

35.) I Want Americans To Decide - LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didnt write yourself.

37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend - LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.

38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

39.) I Don't Take PAC Money - LIAR, you take loads of it.

40.) I Don't Have Lobbysists - LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace - LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

43.) I Inspire People With My Words - LIAR, you inspire people with other peoples words.

44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate - LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate - for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the $15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.

47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail - LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone - LIAR, you wont wear a flag pin and you dont put your hand over your heart during the Anthem. There is a Cuban Flag with Che Guevara displayed at Barack Obama Campaign Office which you allow to be displayed. You voted against making english the official language of the United States. You voted to give illegal aliens social security benefits, which would bankrupt the social security system for Americans legally paying into it.

49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country - LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vain of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.

50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn’t Support - LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quarter of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.

Today, Senate Democrats in the Finance Committee rejected a Republican move to require that the full text of the Baucus government-controlled healthcare bill be posted for 72 hours prior to a vote.

Democrats are fast-tracking the bill through committee, insisting that Senators vote on the bill WITHOUT seeing the actual language of the legislation.

In fact, Democrats were making their point by mocking those who wanted to actually READ the bill before voting!

Sen. Kerry said, "Legislative language is relatively arcane, very legalistic, and most people don't read the legislative language."

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!

Especially since it is clear that ObamaCare is really nothing more than a cover for a massive takeover of huge sectors of our economy that transfers power to the Obama Administration!


Please contact your congressmen/women NOW and let them know you will not stand for this!

What and who exactly are President Obama’s homeland security officials afraid of these days? If you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism, or represents veterans who believe in any of the above, the answer is: You.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has turned her attention away from acts of Islamic jihad on American soil (which she now refers to as “man-caused disasters”). Instead, her department is sounding the alarm over an un-quantified “resurgence” in “rightwing extremism activity.” On April 7, DHS sent a nine-page warning memo to law enforcement offices across the country titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”


The report includes a sweeping definition of the threat:

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

You cannot ignore the context or the timing of this DHS report. It’s no small coincidence that Napolitano’s agency disseminated the assessment just a week before the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests. The grass-roots events organized by fiscal conservatives, independents, Libertarians, and yes, even some blue Dog Democrats were fueled by the “current economic and political climate” of bipartisan profligate spending and endless taxpayer-funded bailouts. The growing success of the loose-knit movement has invited scorn, ridicule, and fear-mongering from Obama’s supporters. Liberal bloggers have likened the Tea Party movement to neo-Nazis, militias, and even Weather Underground terrorists.

These attempts to demonize the Tea Party movement come on the heels of widespread conservative-bashing over the recent shooting sprees in Pittsburgh and Binghamton, New York. Taking Hillary Clinton’s advice to “never waste a good crisis,” left-wing pundits and analysts have blamed the tragedies on everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Fox News to the NRA.

The DHS spokespeople I talked to on Monday insisted that the report was not a politicized document and that DHS had done similar assessments on “leftwing extremism” in the past. But past domestic terrorism reports have always been very specific in identifying security threats – such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front – and very specific in identifying their methods and targets, including repeated physical harassment, arson, and vandalism against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

By contrast, the Obama DHS report is an overarching indictment of conservatives. “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures,” the assessment warns. When I asked DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban to explain who was responsible for this “extremist chatter,” she could not and would not name names.

Moreover, the report relies on the work of the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center to stir anxiety over “disgruntled military veterans” – a citation which gives us valuable insight into how DHS will define “hate-oriented” groups. The SPLC, you see, has designated the venerable American Legion a “hate group” for its stance on immigration enforcement. The report offers zero data, but states with an almost resentful attitude toward protected free speech: “Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.”

“Potential to turn violent?” So did the hysterical fervor whipped up by Capitol Hill over the AIG bonuses, which prompted ugly death threats from across the country. No mention here, though. Not “rightwing” enough. Nor will you see Obama DHS warnings to police and sheriff’s departments about self-proclaimed bank terrorists such as Bruce Marks of the aggressive Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America or the mob activists of ACORN who have committed burglary, stormed corporate executives’ homes, and vowed to conduct “civil disobedience” by “any means necessary” in response to the “current economic and political climate.”

If you can redefine dissenting opinion as “hate,” you can brand your political opponents as “extremists” – and you can marginalize electoral threats. “Antigovernment?” “Pro-enforcement?” “Disgruntled?” Feeling taxed enough already and “recruiting” and “radicalizing” your friends and neighbors through “chatter on the Internet?”

We are all rightwing extremists now. Welcome to the club.


by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 200


Originally posted on michellemalkin.com website on 4/15/09

Obama has raised the debt about $1.2 TRILLION since he's been in office. Projected to over $9 TRILLION by 2020. Congress passed his $780 billion "stimulus package" without even reading it. $8.5 of that was earmarked for ACORN who supported him in the election to the tune of $1 million plus. Congress has finally cut them off from any more money. Attempting to block that effort was yet another Obama appointee Nancy Pelosi. There is talk of another so-called "stimulus package" by the end of this year.

Obama promised unemployment would not go over 8% in 2009. He also promised it would not go over 9% in 2010. There has been 2.5 million jobs lost since he took office. As of August the official unemployment rate was 9.7% (it has almost doubled since August last year). California has one of the highest rates where they cut off the water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley in order to save a minnow. We got 12% of our food in the US from this valley including tomatoes, almonds, etc... The unemployment rate in the US is the highest it's been in 26 years.

Obama promised he would not have earmarks or lobbists. That didn't happen.

Obama has taken over banks, financial institutions, car companies and now wants to take over your healthcare.

Obama is mirandizing enemy combatants on the battlefield, closing down Gitmo (It keeps terrorists away from our shores and helps keep Americans safe), cutting the defense budget (which costs us a huge amount of high tech jobs), sending suspected terriorists to Bermuda, etc...

Obama's people are calling american patriots, voicing their opinions on the issues: "right wing extremists", "domestic terriorists" and "racists" among other things.

Obama once said, "Judge me by the people I surround myself with". So lets just check out a few of those self-appointed "czars" he surrounds himself with.


Obama appointed Van Jones as one of his advisors "czars" (Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation). Van Jones is a known and self admitted Marxist communist and former co-founder of the radical Marxist group STORM of which Obama was quite aware. He was forced to step down once the public became aware of his past.

Obama appointed John Holdren as one of his advisors "czars" (Director, WH Office of Science and Tech Policy). In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that: women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not. The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food. Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise. People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Obama appointed Cass Sunstein as one of his advisors "czars" (Admistrator, WH Office of Info and Regulatory Affairs). He has said that animals should have the right to sue humans and that all hunting should be banned. He also said that the state should own all organs of the deceased basically creating a nation of forced organ donors.

Obama appointed Harold Koh as one of his advisors "czars" (Legal Advisor, US Departmet of State). He advocates a "Transnational legal process" meaning that judges should not follow american law when making decisions but also follow 'global norms'. He also once wrote that the U.S. was part of an "axis of disobedience" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He argued that one of the most pressing issues facing the world is the need for "the global regulation of small arms" and that he supports a "global gun control regime."

Obama appointed David Ogden as one of his advisors "czars" (Deputy of the Department of Justice 'DOJ'). He has extensively represented Playboy, Penthouse and other pornography businesses on numerous occasions and even argued to force the government to use tax dollars to publish portions of Playboy in Braille at the Library of Congress. He also served as legal counsel opposing the Children’s Internet Protection Act and the Child Protection Obscenity and Enforcement Act, which requires pornographers to verify "performers" are not children. His vile record continues ad nauseam.

Obama appointed Kevin Jennings as one of his advisors "czars" (Assistant Deputy Secretary, US Department of Education). Before joining the administration he was the Executive Director of GLSEN which stands for "Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network". The group sponsored a conference called 'Teachout 2000' at which department of education employees provided graphic answers to children about how to perform various sexual acts.

Obama appointed Mark Lloyd as one of his advisors "czars" (Chief Diversity Officer Federal Communications Commission). The Wall Street journal reported Lloyd has criticized corporate ownership of media and has advocated taxing station owners to subsudize public broadcasters. He seems to be a fan of Hugo Chavez saying he had an incredible "democratic revolution" in Venezuela.

Obama appointed Rosa Brooks as one of his advisors "czars" (Senior Advisor to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy). She wrote a column in the LA Times in July 2007 stating that before 9/11 Al-Qaeda was a little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs and that US policies have since turned them into a vast global threat. She appears to be suggesting it's was our fault.

Obama appointed Thomas Perrelli as one of his advisors "czars" (Associate Attorney General). he argued on behalf of Michael Schiavo’s right to withhold food and water from his disabled wife Terri Schiavo, which resulted in her death. Perrelli was lauded by pro-euthanasia activists for his efforts. He also raised over $500 k for Obama's campaign.

Obama appointed Carol Browner as one of his advisors "czars" (Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change). She was one of the directors of "Socialists International". They proclaim they support a "New World Order". They also "set out recommendations to tackle these fundamental issues, with a particular focus currently on supporting and contributing to the United Nations Climate Change Conferences and the global effort to reduce global warming". Among other things.

Obama has a nominee in Dawn Johnsen for "czar" (Head the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel). She is a former legal director for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and an ACLU fellow. NARAL is one of the most left-wing, pro-abortion, polarizing groups in the nation. Throughout her career, Johnsen has been an open advocate of the abortion-rights lobby.

Obama has a nominee in David Hamilton for "czar" (7th Circuit Court of Appeals). He is Dawn Johnsen's brother-in-law. He was once a board member of the ACLU, he was also once a fundraiser for ACORN.

Still feel all warm and fuzzy inside about your new president? This is just the tip of the iceberg.

How's that change working for you America?

Never before have so many Americans been motivated enough to spend hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars to make their way to the nation’s capital and gather as one group to petition against big government spending.

Protests. For decades, they have been the province of the political left. Anti-war activists, pro-choice proponents and roving anti-capitalist bands have all had a virtual monopoly on one of the First Amendment’s most cherished rights, the right of assembly.

However, last Saturday, September 12, more than 100,000 taxpayers from all fifty states gathered in the aptly-named Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. to protest the excessive spending and big government programs being pushed and expanded upon by Congress and the President. The protesters – everyday American taxpayers from all walks of life – weren’t just marching for or against the issue of the day. Instead, they marched in unison to government’s growing infringement on individual freedom and economic liberty.

While health care is obviously the issue du jour, Saturday’s protesters were mostly motivated by the bigger picture, collectively speaking against higher taxes, higher spending, cap-and-trade and for an end to the constant taxpayer-funded bailouts, among other issues. The experience was truly moving and those who attended knew they were making history.

Never before have so many Americans been motivated enough to spend hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars to make their way to the nation’s capital and gather as one group to petition against big government spending. For decades, Americans seemed ambivalent over deficit spending, unless it resulted in higher taxes. No longer.

Now, it is clear that taxpayers across the nation understand the ramifications of out-of-control spending and government debt. No longer satisfied with simply expressing their displeasure at the ballot box, taxpayers have become a motivated constituency, one with a voice and growing political clout.

Unlike the special interests and well-heeled politicians on Capitol Hill, most taxpayers who attended the 9-12 rally, of which the Center for Individual Freedom was a co-sponsor, were ordinary blue-collar Americans, some of whom had neither the time nor the money to take off several days from work and board in an expensive hotel.

We met a couple who had traveled over 600 miles from Georgia to take part in the day’s events. This was their first protest … ever. They were never politically active in the past, but they wanted Washington to know how they felt and they wanted to participate in a historic event at a perilous time for individual liberty.

The couple was not rich and they were not “paid off” by organizers of the event. They drove through the night to avoid spending money on a hotel and they planned to drive home through the night once again. They might have been outliers, but from walking around the crowd of tens-of-thousands who gathered on the sunny Saturday afternoon, the general impression was that most protestors were of modest means with impassionate spirits.

Some of the activists were doctors. On President Obama’s health care plan, Dr. David Dunch, said, “It’s a mistake. It’s going to result in ultimate rationing and limiting care to our elderly. We need to open up the 50 states to all insurance plans. We need tort reform. We don’t have to trash the current system.”

Dr. Dunch wasn’t the only physician who made the trek. In all, there were more than 1,500 doctors who came to protest and speak with their representatives. Some members of Congress listened, but others refused to hold a meeting with doctors and Congressional staff, even for five minutes.

As we emerge from the 9-12 rally, however, the message is that the people have spoken and now Washington must listen. Early indications are that some in Washington are paying attention. Moderate Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine now publically oppose any form of a “Public Option.”

With universal GOP opposition to government-run health care, the burden shifts to the Democrats to scrap the current plan and embrace bipartisan reform efforts. The Republicans too must forcefully advance alternatives and seek to expand access, reduce costs and increase health care options for Americans, explaining clearly and honestly both the stakes and the tradeoffs.

If politicians don’t listen and heed the warnings of Saturday’s protestors, then they can be sure the energy and drive of taxpayers will only heighten leading up to Election Day in 2010. As one speaker charged, “Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored.”


by Sam Batkins


Originally posted on the CFIF.org website on 9/16/09

Sean Hannity broadcasted live from Huron, CA this evening, raising the nation’s awareness of the tragedy unfolding in the parched fields of our fertile valley. Ground water is not sufficient for farming operations during our drought cycle. That is why there are annual surface water supplements allocated. However, tunnel-visioned environmentalists have successfully lobbied to have those allocations stopped in order to protect the Delta smelt and Chinook salmon. Each winter the pumps are turned off at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in accordance with Endangered Species Act (ESA) provisions. Despite a three-year drought, Congress decided that the pumps should not be turned on this spring. As a result, there are miles and miles of fallow fields from Bakersfield to Sacramento.

While unemployment in some communities is at 40 percent locally, hundreds of millions of people have not felt the full effect of this fiasco yet. Grocery prices are quickly rising across the nation, however, and fresh produce from foreign countries will be needed to supplement dwindling domestic production. With every shipment of foreign produce also comes the potential for introduction of pests for which we do not have natural predators. Therefore, California, and the rest of the nation, as well, may be facing more than just water issues down the road.

Much of the farmland on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley looks like this, instead of planted fields. Local congressmen George Radanovich, Devin Nunes, and Jim Costa each spoke briefly about why we do not currently have the usual annual surface water supplement allocations. Comedian and water allocation advocate, Paul Rodriguez, also spoke passionately about the plight of farmers and farmworkers. Alan Autry, a popular actor and former Mayor of Fresno, probably summed up the dire situation best when he called federal prohibition of water shipments to the Valley “an act of domestic terrorism.” The commericial in which he states, “If you like foreign oil, you’ll love foreign food,” was aired several times during the program.

The recurring theme throughout the broadcast was that the federal government has contributed to the drought and farm failures in the San Joaquin Valley, and powerful Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, are at the forefront of the problem.

I must question whether environmentalists have considered whether they are pushing humans toward the benchmark for endangered species. Without water and food, we surely cannot survive.


by Jo Ann Estrada-Young


Originally posted on the Examiner.com website on 9/17/09

Democrats are still not satisfied with my former colleague Joe Wilson’s apology after he shouted “You lie!” when Obama claimed in his address to Congress that “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

If he does not continue to grovel and apologize they are threatening to discipline him for his violation of what Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman calls the “House rules of decorum.”

Whether or not he breached House decorum, Joe’s actions were both true and effective. Obama admitted as much by proposing changes to the bill to limit illegal alien’s access to Obamacare. Joe’s apology is enough, but Obama’s concessions are not.

When Obama made his speech, there were a number of glaring and intentional loopholes to the Democrat’s pretend ban of illegal aliens in the House healthcare bill HR 3200.

Virtually every single means tested government program requires that applicants are screened by the “Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements” [SAVE] program to ensure that they are not illegal aliens.

But this provision is not included in HR 3200. This is not an oversight. Republicans twice introduced Amendments to require the SAVE program be implemented, and it was voted down by the same Democrats who hypocritically added the clause that ostensibly barred illegals.

Furthermore, the bill does not say anything about illegal aliens not being able to participate in the taxpayer subsidized “Health Insurance Exchange” program. The Congressional Research Service reported that it “does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange”.

Conservatives tried to bring these facts to the forefront of the healthcare debate, but the media and the Democrats simply ignored them or repeated their lie that illegal aliens would not receive government funded healthcare.

But Joe Wilson forced them to face the facts. On Friday night, Obama announced that he wanted to use the SAVE program and bar illegals from the Health Insurance Exchange.

This does not mean Obama was telling the truth when Joe called him a liar. On the contrary, it is an admission that before Joe called out Obama illegals were eligible.

Assuming the House follows through with Obama’s newly proposed changes, there are still more loopholes.

As the open borders lobby never fails to remind us, many illegal aliens have family members who are here legally. Often, they are “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens on US soil. There is nothing in to keep them from getting healthcare. The Congressional Research Service issued a report noting,

“There could be instances where some family members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not… H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.”

It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to guess where Obama’s handpicked bureaucrats will come down on this issue.

But even if all the loopholes are closed, they will be meaningless if amnesty is given to illegal aliens. If passed, Obamacare will not go in effect until 2013. Obama wants to pass amnesty in the beginning of 2010. He told Katie Couric he wanted to,

“create a situation where we’re dealing with illegal immigration, so that we don’t have illegal immigrants. And we’ve got legal residents or citizens who are eligible for the plan. And I want a comprehensive immigration plan that creates a pathway to achieve that.”

So if he gets his way, prohibitions against giving healthcare to illegal aliens will be meaningless because they won’t be illegal aliens anymore.

Illegal immigration already costs billions to our system. The Federation for American Immigration Reform recently released a report that the cost of reimbursing hospitals for care of illegal aliens alone costs 10.5 billion dollars a year. Another study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimated the cost of including illegals in Obamacare at 30.5 billion dollars.

Turning illegal aliens into legal residents does not change these costs.

The American people are overwhelmingly on our side. According to the latest Rammussen Poll, 83% of American voters believe that applicants for government-subsidized healthcare should be required to show proof of U.S. Citizenship.

This is why the open borders lobby is effective only when they hide their real agenda. In July, Roll Call interviewed an anonymous Congressman from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,

“Asked if [CHC] leaders will ask Pelosi to specifically spell something out in the bill to address illegal immigrants, the Member said no. Rather, the Member said the CHC simply wants to make sure the bill—as drafted—doesn’t prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing care.”

They do not tell the American people what they really want because they know the American people are against them. Like roaches, they will run for cover if you shine a little light on them. Joe did exactly that.


by Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo represented Colorado’s 6th Congressional District from 1999 until 2009 where he chaired the 100+ member bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus. He currently serves as co-chairman of Team America PAC and president of the Rocky Mountain Foundation.


Originally posted on the Constitution Parties website on 9/15/09

A growing sidebar of the James Pouillon murder (he was gunned down while peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic in Owosso, Michigan) is the silence of national pro-choice organizations.

I ran a quick search, and none of the biggies - NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or the National Organization for Women - have issued statements condemning the murder. (President Obama was late to the party, but he did end up issuing a statement on the killing.)

On its home page, the National Abortion Federation gives top billing to mourning the loss of Ted Kennedy and to remembering George Tiller, whom NAF calls "an American hero." Tiller was a late-term abortionists who was murdered May 31 at his church.

In contrast, a number of pro-life groups issued statements the day of Tiller's death condemning acts of violence in the heated abortion debate (National Right to Life and Americans United for Life, to name two). Naturally, pro-choice groups put out their own releases. But the non-existent response from abortion advocates over the cold-blooded murder of Pouillon - a man standing up for life and exercising his constitutional rights - should give us pause.

Could be that one side in this debate does, in fact, value human life more than the other.


by David N. Bass


Originally posted on the American Spectator website on 9/15/09

It's my opinion that David Axelrod is a nimrod. He is senior advisor to the Obama Hussein, ha... just another of O's “Czars” who is clueless and corrupt.

CBS's "Face the Nation" which is already going to be biased before the guest even shows up, interviewed this loser the other night.

He was questioned about the "Tea Party" movement and the HUGE protest at the White House last weekend.

Nimrod said, "The protesters do not represent the views of the broader public when it comes to healthcare reform." What planet is he from? Has he not seen the polls? It's obvious he does not watch Fox news.

He also said, "I don't think it's indicative of the nation's mood, you know I don't think we should be distracted by that. My message to them is, they're WRONG!"

Arrogant sob, wrong? Can you believe this dude? There were an estimated 70,000 + people there more or less and a whole bunch more at tea parties around the country. Not to mention those of us who had to work who would have LOVED to be there.

Nimrod suggested that, "The more over-the-top demonstrations were representative of a minority view, the kind exhibited at some town hall meetings over the summer." that should've been his 1st clue. The white house claims that the town hall meetings were staged and paid for or some crap. The nerve of these morons.

Then this condescending pos ends by saying,”You know, one of the great things about our country is people can express themselves even if they’re not representative of the majority.”

I find it amusing watching these crooks go down the tubes. They are trying everything to cover their collective butts but it's only a matter of time. The revolution is coming folks. There are too many people fed up with the BIG and CORRUPT gov't that is in place now and it is just a matter of time before it is all exposed.

My only hope is once it's all out there to see that we will get some honest Constitutionalists / Libertarians in there to clean it up, downsize it and get us back on the right path. We can only protest, pray and VOTE.

I always knew that mainstream media was biased and didn't tell us the whole truth but this last week has proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is totally inconceivable just how far gone the media is. I feel that true unbiased journalism is dead, if it was ever alive.

If you only get your "news" and I use the term loosely, from NBC, CBS, ABC, etc...then you may not have heard of Van Jones (former co-founder of STORM, a marxist group). He was one of Obama's appointed "Czars" and self-avowed communist who said and I quote, "The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of colored communities because they don't have a racial justice frame".?!?!?!, just resigned.

You also may never have heard of ACORN. Obama was a former employee of ACORN who you, the taxpayer, has given $53 million since 1994 and have $8.5 BILLION earmarked for now thanks to Obama's 'Stimulas Package". It seems they are telling prostitutes how to get money for housing and cheat the gov't out of taxes when they open a new brothel with 14 year old illegal alien girls. Not only that but ACORN has fired 4 employees and the Census Bureau has cut all ties with them.

You could just not make this stuff up. It is for real. It would be laughable if it were not true. Believe me when I tell you these stories are HUGE but they make Obama look bad so the corruption continues into main stream media who does not want the public to know about these stories.

Reports in the news on Van Jones from his appointment to his resignation:

Fox 51
CNN 9
NBC 1
CBS 2
ABC 1
MSNBC 2
NY Times 1
Wash. Post 4
Wall St Journ. 1

Reports in the news on the ACORN scandals:

Fox 133
CNN 90
NBC 2
CBS 1
ABC 2
MSNBC 10
NY Times 17
Wash. Post 10
Wall St Journ. 5

Just unbelievable. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee America. Your gov't and your media is corrupt. They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. We must fight back with letters, phone calls, emails and mainly at the polls. God bless America, we're going to need it!

'Gun-Free Zones' are a recipe for disaster. Who comes up with this stuff. Seriously who? Do they think that putting up a sign down the street will stop a bad guy from carrying a gun into this so-called "zone"? Of course not. It will only stop law-abiding citizens.

The 'Gun-Free Zone' is nothing but an open invitation to the bad guy to come on in and take what he wants. Come on in... there are only helpless, unarmed victims just waiting for you. Kill, rape and steal whatever and whoever you like. The buffet is open.

Get real America. Wake up. Why do you think all these killings are happening in our schools that are 'Gun-Free Zones'? Shame on you America for sending our teachers and our children to a place where they have no recourse but to submit to the bad guys.

I for one am sick of these liberal sissies that want to control law-abibing citizens like you and me. How dare they tell us when and where we have the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. It's a God given right. It's a Constitutional right. It's absurd!

Every anti-gun politician since the Brady bill is responsible for the deaths of all the teachers and kids who have been slaughtered in schools across the country and should be tried for murder. Somebody had to say it. They are passing laws to get innocent Americans killed. It's treasonous.

Fight for our 2nd Amendment rights and get guns BACK on campuses. I'd like to see teachers taught gun safety and use and then packing in class. You think the crazies would think twice about coming to school then? I do.