The top force against Proposition 8 admitted that he tapes phone calls with reporters without consent, violating Penal Code Section 632. The Chronicle had revealed that Jerry Brown made concessions in a key ballot measure to car insurance companies after the Mercury General insurance firm gave $13,000 to Brown's campaign.
Brown blocked attempts to shield voters from intimidation
Brown called for the Fairness Doctrine to shutup critics
Brown told courts to overthrow proposition 8
San Franisco Chronicle praised Brown's attacks on the people's right to vote
Brown has a life-time of corruption.
This guy is an Attorney General?? No wonder California is tanking!
Slavoj Žižek is a visiting professor at the University of Chicago, Columbia, London Consortium, Princeton, The New School, the University of Minnesota, the University of California, Irvine and the University of Michigan. New York Times praised him as the "Elvis of cultural theory." Right now Zizek is in New York preaching socialized healthcare is a series of lectures.
Revolutionary Road quoted him in an interview:
I am a Leninist. Lenin wasn't afraid to dirty his hands. If you can get power, grab it. Do whatever is possible. This is why I support Obama. I think the battle he is fighting now over healthcare is extremely important, because it concerns the very core of the ruling ideology. The core of the campaign against Obama is freedom of choice. And the lesson, if he wins, is that freedom of choice is certainly something beautiful, but that it only works against a background of regulations, ethical presuppositions, economic conditions and so on. My position isn't that we should sit down and wait for some big revolution to come. We have to engage wherever we can. If Obama wins his battle over healthcare, if some kind of blow can be struck against the ideology of freedom of choice, it will have been a victory worth fighting for.
The trouble started when Trevor Keezor read a bible during lunch breaks at Home Depot in Republican-controlled Okeechobee, Florida. This intolerant behavior led management to demand he remove his patriotic pin, or to get packing.
Home Depot says Keezor "chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs" and thus broke dress code. Keezor says the button expresses his patriotism and his support for family serving in the National Guard.
Nearby in Florida, police are searching for vandals who painted over a sign that said One Nation Under Obama to read One Nation Under God. The poor victimised owners blame racism for the intolerant action. Apparently neighbors wrote God on the sign many times before, but Randy Heine proudly set it back up each time.
The media falsely accused that opponents are getting paid by healthcare insurance companies. Just today MSNBC falsely insinuated that Joe Lieberman is on the role.
But the dirty truth is that drug companies pay for Democrats' public option healthcare propaganda.
These same pharmaceutical companies have been caught "engaging in a number of deceptive marketing practices." You won't see the media report this.
The Associated Press discovered that Taco Bell generates more profit than the healthcare insurance industry. So does Taco Bell get to stay in business? All they do is take money and give some back in the form of deep fried food. That is called stealing!
To defend this type of wealth distribution is very unamerican. More precious than healthcare is food, it is the most basic thing needed to live. Obama needs to nationalize food.
I am outraged that Taco Bell gets to poison the public with trans fats and spicy food, often leading to diarrhea. Just one tiny taco has 4 grams of trans fats.
Taco Bell pays minimum wage to minority poor hardworking people whose human rights deserve higher wages and benefits. Studies show the government would more than triple their wages and cut costs by slashing corruption.
Taco Bell refuses to serve people who don't have enough money to pay for food. What gives them that right? People who can't afford food are the people who need food the most!
Taco Bell may raise their prices at any time, effectively depriving all minorities of delicious tacos, leaving people to starve. We need laws that prevent this from happening. Taco Bell must not be able to withhold services from people with preconditions.
Taco Bell often contributes to big politicians, probably in exchange for favors. For example, Joseph Davis from Taco Bell just made a fat contribution to the AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. Strage bed-fellows? The truth is, Taco Bell regularly intimidates political opponents and spreads massive smear campaigns against people seeking progressive reform.
Taco Bell may refuse to service anyone at any time. If someone can't speak English or Spanish, Taco Bell is likely to hold back their precious commodity, leaving that person to starve. This is just wrong.
Taco Bell provides the most essential commodity in any society: food. Millions of people starve in America every year because Taco Bell refuses to be good human beings and share to those in need. For the sake of our children, Obama needs to immediatly stop this crime against humanity!
Barack Obama's safe school czar Kevin Jennings praised NAMBLA figure Harry Hay (North American Man/Boy Love Association), calling him "one of the people that’s always inspired me." He praised the "million people willing to travel to Washington to join" Hay in a march for boy/man sexual rights, and asserted that if Harry Hay is crazy "we are all crazy."
Harry Hay gave keynote speeches to the Man/Boy Love Association, in which he talked about how great it was as a teenager to have sex with much older men.
He published a promotional on the back of Witchhunt Foiled: The FBI vs. NAMBLA which was exposed by Zombie Times in the photo seen here. The last line reads: "Thank you, NAMBLA, for giving me the space to express my appreciation for your travail.” The inside cover reaffirms NAMBLA's mission to bring together "men and boys involved in consensual sexual and emotional relationships with each other."
The promotional is alongside other promotionals by pro-pedophilists like Pat Califia.
In 1988 Safe-schools Czar Kevin Jennings condoned child rape and child molestation as a school counselor, according Jennings' own writings and other allegations. Jennings wrote that he had simply told a 16 year old student that he should use a condom when having sex with older men.
Is this video fake? This might be one of the most ridiculous things I've seen... since last week. Absolute tyranny.
Lenin said that.
Breibart makes a great point. Obama's Health Care is all about Deception and Control. He may seem to be flip-flopping but in the end he will always come back to the Public Option.
Biggovernment.com- "The truth is that the public plan is a carefully devised scheme, a sneaky strategy, to deceive American voters. It’s a political marketing ploy designed to move the nation to a single-payer system – like the one in Canada – over the next decade. The public option is the Trojan horse. On the outside it’s all about “choice and competition”, but once it has been dragged within the walls of American medicine it’s true nature will become evident. By that time, it’ll be too late.
You want proof? We’ve got plenty.
Starting in April on our blog at VerumSerum.com, we have uncovered many prominent advocates of health reform revealing the hidden agenda behind the public option. Most prominently Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), but also Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Even Rahm Emanuel got into the act.
More damning still, we uncovered video of the original architect of the public option, Yale professor Jacob Hacker, describing how it was designed to not “frighten people into thinking they are going to lose their private insurance” even though that is the inevitable result. In another clip he denies the plan is a Trojan horse saying, on the contrary, “it’s right there”. In other words, it’s not even a secret. Most relevant of all, Hacker admits in another clip that the real advantage of his plan is that “at least you can make the claim that there is competition between the public and private sectors”. In other words, this is all a marketing strategy designed to get around public resistance to government-run health care.
For his part, President Obama has been an extremely disciplined salesman. The mantra of “choice and competition” has been repeated to the point that it is little more than political background noise. To this day, neither the President nor any of his spokespeople have been challenged by the media about these claims, despite the fact that there is video evidence which directly contradicts what he is saying. So confident is the President that the media will toe his line that, in a speech in front of the American Medical Association, the President explicitly denied that the public option was a “Trojan horse” for a single payer system. On this, and numerous other occasions, he has said that opponents of reform who claim this are not telling the truth. Outside talk radio, the conservative blogosphere, and a couple editorials in the Wall Street Journal, no one has been willing to suggest that the opposite is the case.
With so many proponents of reform caught on tape directly contradicting the President, it almost seems as if the mainstream media has intentionally avoided covering this story. And as anyone who has been paying attention knows, that’s something they’ve been guilty of more than once since Obama took office. NY Times public editor Clark Hoyt admitted in a bombshell statement that the paper had risked appearing biased for its failure to cover the Van Jones and ACORN stories as they broke. The Washington Post was similarly chastened.
And as it turns out, both papers may have an additional reason to avoid touching this story. Because politicians are not the only ones we have exposed admitting the truth about the public option. Back in June, we posted a video of Ezra Klein from the Washington Post revealing how the public option was designed as a “sneaky strategy” to move towards single payer. And we have posted videos of Paul Krugman from the NY Times admitting much the same.
But nothing we have uncovered previously is as comprehensive and breathtakingly direct as a new audio clip of Paul Krugman we discovered this week."
A Florida judge sentenced Christian convert Rifqa Barry to her death, sending her back to her Islamic parents whom she claims threatened to kill her.
The underage girl was allegedly threatened and sexually assaulted by her family. CAIR and the media got involved and... well... our government becomes impotent when that happens. She was questioned for three hours by police without any Guardian ad litem present. But CAIR was.
Atlas Shrugged has the interview with police.
Rifqa said: "Uh, I am sorry but aren't I supposed to have like lawyers here or anything like that."
Police reply: "You're the victim (chuckle)"
Update! A driver in China runs down two pedestrians and everyone just walks by as they are critically injured. The joys of Mao's communism! video here
More standup comedy?
Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom for the White House said:
"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to gain the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they are convinced that there is a free lunch.
We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no limit game. We kinda agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it, that if you want a friend you should get a dog."
Bloom has worked for unions for decades, including SEIU. Most recently he worked for the scandal-plagued United Steel Workers union, which received a fat bailout deal under him.
The White House communications director Anita Dunn said she was just making innocent jokes when she praised communist leader Mao Tse-tung as one of her favorite political philosophers which she turns to most.
By yours truly.
AFP- "MORE than one million people have taken part in a demonstration in Madrid against the socialist government's plans to liberalise the abortion law, one of the organisers said. "There are more than one million people," Victor Gago, a spokesman for the anti-abortion organisation HazteOir (Make Yourself Heard), told AFP."...
Another anti-abortion protest in the Spanish capital last March attracted 500,000 people, according to the organisers. The proposed new abortion law, approved by the Cabinet last month, would allow the procedure on demand for women of 16..."
This is regarding the Baucus bill, the one that was recently given the ok by the Senate Finance Committee and is, as I understand it, the most considered bill currently.
When the liberals defend that their bill is deficit neutral, they are dishonestly telling only half the story. Here is what they know (or ought to know), but don't mention:
The Congressional Budget Office broke its calculation down into two projections, one for this upcoming decade AND the decade following. Concerning the next 10 years, the bill would indeed appear deficit neutral. But only because most of the bill doesn't actually go into effect until 2015 i.e. 10 years of taxes covering only 5 years of healthcare costs. Funny how that pesky little fact puts "deficit neutrality" into perspective.
But wait, it gets worse. The mainstream media doesn't even mention the CBO's projection for the decade following. Why? Because in the second decade alone, the CBO estimates that the bill's costs would TRIPLE to $2.8 trillion dollars!! They calculated a total cost of $3.6 trillion dollars, thus raising taxes by $2.3 trillion and quadrupling Medicare cuts by $1.9 trillion.
Note carefully that these are trillions with a 'T', not that $829 billion that Obama and the liberal media have been fraudulently pushing. Oh, and this, would also leave 25 million non-elderly still uninsured.
Liberty’s march has a new generation of patriots.
The Tea Party movement of 2009 shocked the political establishment, the nation at large and left a big media machine dizzy in its wake. How did it happen? Where did it come from? Now, experience the story of the movement that's driving our national dialogue against big government spending and a Constitution under assault. "Tea Party: The Documentary Film" follows the struggles of five grassroots individuals and their transformation from home town rally goers and rally organizers to national activists in the 912 March on Washington. In the process, the film reveals what is at the heart of this nationwide surge of civic engagement - a return to and respect for a Constitutionally limited government, personal responsibility and fiscal restraint at the Federal level.
NATE Nate, a young black man from Detroit, Michigan, voted for Barack Obama in 2008 from an upbringing that taught him to mistrust America because of the color of his skin. As a Libertarian with a paradigm shift and a newfound understanding of the nation he loves, he is risking the anger of family and friends by joining the march against a President’s policies that would victimize the very people he loves the most.
JACK Jack is a father of two young children, a little league baseball coach and a health insurance agent. He risks losing his job under current healthcare reform. He is a Democrat turned Constitutionalist and the younger brother of a Vietnam soldier who is marching for his children, his brother’s legacy and the future of the America he believes in.
JENNY BETH In 2008, she and her husband lost a multi-million dollar business, were forced into bankruptcy and home foreclosure. Nine months later, she is working as a national leader in the grassroots tea party movement, organizing events and taking her message to the steps of the National Mall with the company of millions behind her.
WILLIAM William is a patriot renaissance man, a pastor, colonial re-enactor, painter, poet, Vietnam veteran, former Pentagon and Secret Service employee and a man of the march. He can be outrageous and funny or somber and reflective, full of antics and unpredictability. He marched for the Vietnam Memorial during the Reagan Era and this time, his journey back to Washington, DC leads him to the front lines of the march down Pennsylvania Avenue on September 12.
DR. FRED SHESSEL Dr Fred Shessel is a doctor moved to action against a government threatening to undermine the doctor-patient relationship with suffocating beaucracy and increased taxpayer spending. After years practicing as a highly respected urologist, he is stepping out of the hospital corridors to lead an army of fellow physicians into the halls of power and corruption and fight for his patients on Capitol Hill.
DAVE Dave is a 20-something young professional studying to become a doctor. He spent time as a fashion model in Milan and beyond and is sick of big government and the apathy within his own generation. He is now moved to action in the tea party movement by a government gone too far.
[Video here] What in the world could Elder Oaks of the LDS Church have done to incite such bitter hatred from the liberal left? Turns out he was standing up for freedom of religion and speech. From the Article IV Blog:
Elder Oaks is member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”). He’s also a lawyer, a former professor of law at the University of Chicago, past President of BYU, and a former member of the Utah Supreme Court. He is a formidable legal and political thinker and a clear writer. His speech, given to students at BYU-Idaho (a college owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or “the Church”), has a simple thesis: There is a “battle” underway over “the meaning of religious freedom under the United States Constitution,” and that battle “is of eternal importance.” Nothing terribly surprising there, coming from a churchman. The controversy has arisen from Elder Oaks’ comments about what is happening now in the arena of religious freedom in the USA:
Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly. (Emphasis added.)
Then Elder Oaks zeroed in on the problem of “silencing religious voices in the public square” and in the process, used the Proposition 8 battle as an example. In other words, he touched the “third rail” of the modern culture war: gay marriage. It’s important to note that Elder Oaks did not talk about gay marriage, only about the reaction to the active involvement of the Church and its members in supporting Proposition 8. In other words, the Oaks speech was about religious freedom, but it somehow earned him designation as one of the”worst people in the world” by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. (A badge of honor to some, I suppose.)
The Key Points of The Speech
So what did Elder Oaks say to incite such a venomous attack from the wild-swinging Olbermann? Well, this:
For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”
Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its [Prop 8] coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”
Still looking for a statement worthy of “worst people in the world” designation? Maybe it was this:
[W]e must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. We are under command to love our neighbor (Luke 10:27), to forgive all men (Doctrine and Covenants 64:10), to do good to them who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44) and to conduct our teaching in mildness and meekness (Doctrine and Covenants 38:41).
Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled. As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12). And modern revelation commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30).
Well, no, it probably wasn’t that. Maybe it was this:
[W]e must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.
We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.
Uh-oh. Now we are getting somewhere. Elder Oaks seems to be about to decry the retaliation and intimidation that Prop 8 opponents employed against Mormons – and many others – who supported Prop 8. I am talking about the publication of maps showing the homes of individuals who donated to the Yes on 8 campaign; boycotts of their businesses; identification of Mormons among the public lists of donors to the Yes campaign; and other admitted efforts at intimidating voters from exercising their Constitutional rights.
This is no joke, by the way. I remember hearing Fred Karger, the leader of the charmingly named Californians Against Hate, say on the Al Rantel show (KABC radio, Los Angeles) that the reason donors were being identified and harassed was to make sure they thought twice about donating the next time there is an election about same-sex marriage.
These two paragraphs are probably the most controversial of Elder Oaks’ speech:
Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.
It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation. (Emphasis added.)
The bolded language seems to have driven some people up a wall. Note: Elder Oaks did not compare the harassment of Mormons and other Proposition 8 supporters to the evils inflicted on African-Americans during the civil rights era. He instead addressed the effect of those “incidents of violence and intimidation.”
Elder Oaks also said “we must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith,” and that
“as advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. . . . even the civil rights of religionists must be exercised legally and wisely. . . . The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.”
Not exactly firebrand stuff, is it?[...]
So, Elder Oaks said, in essence, that religious expression is under fire in the United States and that religious people (indeed, all people) ought to be able to speak peaceably in the public square, about public issues, without fear of retaliation for doing so. That earned him the brickbats of the Left – who thus ironically proved Elder Oaks’ point.
Talk radio host and cultural commentator Dennis Prager often says that the Left believes that because they are inherently and unquestionably right, their tactics can never be legitimately questioned. The reaction to the Oaks speech certainly seems to support that thesis. A calm, closely-reasoned speech that urges love and tolerance, but that also urges that religious people should be able respectfully to stand their ground on moral issues, without fear of retaliation, produces a firestorm of
criticism. Good. That means the debate is going on. May the best, most principled arguments win.
[Read the full text of Elder Oak's Speech here.]
In another surprising show, John Stewart, the typically liberal comedian, ridicules CNN for:
- Ignoring the 2 million Tea Party protest in DC on 9/12
- "Fact-checking" the SNL skit ridiculing Obama for accomplishing nothing so far
- Airing guests who obviously make up wild statistics on the spot
- Admitting they have not checked on the facts and statistics they report
Of course, to be fair he does systematically reject the "slippery slope" to socialized medicine argument of the conservatives (though he didn't give a good reason why).
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|CNN Leaves It There|
So why do you think John Stewart has dared to touch the "hush-hush" corruption of the liberal media: first ACORN and now CNN? Intellectual honesty? Opportunism? He doesn't want to be drug down with them is their fall to oblivion?
The best communist president we have ever had!
Washington Times- "President Obama recently shifted authority for approving sales to China of missile and space technology from the White House to the Commerce Department...
The presidential notice alters a key provision of the 1999 Defense Authorization Act that required that the president notify Congress whether a transfer of missile and space technology to China would harm the U.S. space-launch industry or help China's missile programs."
In an effort to circumvent a full house vote, democratic leaders announced that the healthcare legislation might be packaged with other budget bills which would allow the legislation to pass with 51 votes as opposed to the 60 that's normally required. "They're doing this because they know they don't have the 60 votes required," argued Sean Hanity. It's pretty clear that's the only reason. So, to get this all straight, they don't allow members to read the bill before voting and now they're circumventing the legislative process to accomplish their goals. It seems the liberals have forgotten what the word democracy actually means.
[Article - Life and Heatlth Insurance News]
Endangering People to Protect Fish
By Janet Levy
California, the nation's largest producer of fruits, nuts, vegetables, livestock and dairy products, ranks fifth in the world as a supplier of food and agricultural commodities. Cash receipts totaled more than $36.6 billion in 2007. By comparison, Coca Cola's 2008 revenue was $32 billion.
The state provides more than half of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables using more than 25% of California's landmass for agricultural production. The Central Valley accounts for more than half of that area. A paragon of conservation and modern irrigation technology, California agriculture - comprised of many small and family-owned and operated farms - is almost completely dependent on irrigation for its water needs.
Yet, this vibrant industry and major food supplier to the nation and the world faces threats from recent, accelerated efforts by Left wing politicians, government agencies, and extremist environmental groups who seek to limit the Central Valley farmland water supply. Using claims of questionable veracity and arguing for protection of endangered species, they are, in truth, part of a carefully orchestrated attempt to control the nation's food supply. If they succeed, our economy, civil liberties, the American way of life and national security would be dramatically weakened.
[click on "Show Full Post" to read more...]
History of Water Reductions
Water in the Central Valley shifted from farming toward fish in 1992, when U.S. Congressman George Miller (D-Martinez), a close associate and advisor to the current speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, co-authored the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). Coincidentally, two of Miller's former chiefs of staff, John Lawrence and Dan Beard, now serve in Nancy Pelosi's office.
The CVPIA reduced water for Central Valley farming from 3.5 million acre-feet to 2 million acre-feet annually, a 43% reduction and allocated it for wildlife habitats. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) now had authority to control the water supply by diverting water from farmers to fish and wildlife habitats. As a result, Central Valley farmers got less water at higher prices. Using the Endangered Species Act to buttress and justify its actions, FWS grossly expanded federal control of California resources, unilaterally deciding who got how much water in the state. FWS studies and decisions were made without any independent oversight and verification from the scientific community at large.
Further water reductions to Central Valley farmers came from routine, FWS biological surveys of fish in the Delta that identified several species as threatened or endangered. In 2005, FWS identification of the Delta Smelt as not in jeopardy prompted a lawsuit by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a powerful radical environmental group with an annual budget of $88 million. NRDC advocates the reduction of California farmland and the permanent diversion of water from agriculture.
Despite FWS statements that the Delta Smelt was adequately protected, the NRDC sued for a revised biological opinion confirming that the smelt was endangered and that irrigation pumps were responsible. Under judicial order, FWS was forced to redo the biological opinion and institute pumping restrictions in the Delta. Although far more compelling reasons exist for the reduction in number of the Delta Smelt - predatory, non-native species in the Delta from sports fishing and foreign ships; storm drain discharge; dumping of toxic wastes; more favorable water temperatures and flow for fish elsewhere - the judge followed the findings of the new biological opinion and ruled in favor of shutting down the pumps. Ironically, the Delta Smelt population had been significantly larger over the past four decades at a time when much higher pumping levels prevailed.
The NRDC is currently suing on behalf of other Delta species, including the Chinook salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and killer whale. Further pumping reductions could result from future court rulings. If all endangered species judgments were implemented, estimates are that the Central Valley would receive an annual allotment of only 1 to 1.2 million acre-feet of water, a third of pre-CVPIA levels.
History and Impact of the Endangered Species Act
The most wide-ranging environmental law in the United States, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was instituted in 1973 to "protect imperiled species from extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development and inadequate conservation."
It has provided the foundation for federal government intrusion in the Central Valley. No other government mission overrules the ESA's objective of protecting endangered species. It can even close military bases and training facilities. The law is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
ESA listings of endangered species are "based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available." A 1982 ESA amendment went so far as to block economic considerations from being taken into account when designating a threatened or endangered species. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan issued a regulation limiting the protective status of critical habitat, but, a series of court orders in the late 1990s and early 2000s, invalidated this provision. The FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service were forced to designate several hundred areas as critical habitats, essentially giving the ESA a mandate to place a designated plant or animal species above human needs.
The effects of the Endangered Species Act are far-reaching. The legislation has handed the federal government a vehicle to control private, state and local property. The ESA enables the U.S. government to prohibit property owners from using their own land with no reimbursement provided for its disuse and reduced value. Instead, the government's overriding responsibility is to protect a species, while the landowner is saddled with unproductive property subject to customary taxation. Furthermore, the ESA does not specify a time frame or plan for completion of species recovery. Average completion time is approximately six years. ESA violations carry steep fines in excess of $50,000 and imprisonment of up to one year. Rewards are issued to individuals who report violators.
Challenges to the ESA
Theoretically, three allowable challenges to the Endangered Species Act exist - the biological challenge, the species challenge and an override by the Endangered Species Committee. But none of these challenges have met with much success.
•§ The Biological Challenge
The scientific method and evidence used by the FWS to determine species eligibility for listing may be disputed. However, the standard for listings requires use of the "best available science" and scientists can refuse to release supporting scientific data. The ESA publishes scientific conclusions, but holds the position that the data is the researcher's private property and should not be made public. FWS sampling is conducted at the same location every year despite changes in water levels and fish migratory patterns. Independent researchers have conducted their own samplings and contested ESA rulings, but their results are not generally taken into consideration by the courts which defer to the FWS position and rarely overturn rulings.
•§ The Species Challenge
The ESA allows classification of species into dubious sub-species based on geographic location and seasonal factors. Alleged sub-species might share DNA with a particular species, but if they exist in a different bend of a river or during a different season, they may be classified as distinct sub-species. Thus, a species may be plentiful across the country or in a particular region but may be declared endangered if its numbers are reduced in a specific location or its fall or spring population is reduced. By expanding the list of sub-species, the federal government has been able to increase its control over land use. Challenges to sub-species classifications have not been successful, as environmentalists argue that interbreeding cannot take place across regions and distinct time periods.
•§ The Endangered Species Committee (ESC)
Also known as the "God Squad" due to the gravitas of their decisions for the natural world, the seven-member, Cabinet-level ESC committee has the authority to exempt a species from listing based on stringent requirements. With five votes required for exemption and the ESC convening only six times since 1978, only one species has been exempted.
In response to the catastrophic consequences of the ESA in the Central Valley, legal challenges have been filed against several biological listings used to restrict water flow.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public interest legal organization, has sued federal regulators on behalf of farmers for failing to assess the economic impact of pumping cutbacks. Recently, a U.S. District judge ruled that the federal government failed to conduct an adequate environmental analysis of the status of the Delta smelt and did not account for the economic effect of the environmental ruling on humans. A hearing is set for December. The PLF is also seeking to overturn a biological opinion that would further restrict water to the Central Valley to protect the steelhead, salmon, killer whales and sturgeon.
Local water agencies have tried to legally stop the federal government from enforcing the restrictive smelt management plan by filing lawsuits to undo the latest round of water cutbacks to the region. Water agency representatives are trying to stop enactment of FWS biological opinions and ensure that decisions are based on the best available science. According to their research, standards for scientific accuracy have not been maintained and findings have been contradictory and unverifiable.
California Congressmen and a U.S. Senator have proposed several legislative solutions for the looming water shut off. Congressman George Radanovich (R-CA) proposed the Drought Alleviation Act (H.R. 856) which supports development of a fish hatchery to propagate alleged endangered species while the pumps are turned on. Local farmers have even offered to pay for the hatcheries. Congressional Democrats have blocked a hearing on this bill, while environmentalists insist that a hatchery would not produce "natural" fish because of an altered habitat.
An effort to force a vote on the "Turn on the Pumps Act" (H.R. 3105) put forth by Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) was defeated by House Democrats. Not a single California Democrat voted for this legislation that would alleviate the suffering of Central Valley constituents.
Another solution proposed by Congressman Nunes, H.R. 996, calls for erecting temporary barriers to keep smelt away from the pumps while water transfers occur. In September, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) presented an amendment to defund biological opinions for one-year until all of the science is reviewed. California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer both opposed the amendment.
"What started out as a local water problem in California is quickly developing into a food problem for the nation," DeMint said. "If we don't address the problem now, not only will thousands of people remain out of work in California, but everyone in the country will pay higher food prices."
Impact on Farmers and Farming Communities
With precipitation at 95% of normal levels over the last three years and reservoirs at 80% capacity, the pump shutoffs have created a man-made drought, sending 619,000 acre-feet of water into the ocean. As a result, 500,000 acres of farmland were taken out of production in 2009 alone and those still farming are forced to grow crops requiring less water.
As a result, Central Valley farming is becoming less diversified by necessity as farmers struggle to grow crops requiring less water and still obtain good profit margins. Reductions in farmed acres have caused declines in cotton production and steep drops in spring lettuce, carrots, broccoli and cauliflower. Many fruit trees and vines, which require up to eight years investment before a profitable yield can be realized, have been removed or are barely kept alive. Local farmers find it more difficult to compete with foreign producers who have fewer regulations and no water restrictions.
The overwhelming majority of farmers have invested in water efficiency technology for years. They have integrated drip irrigation efficiencies into their farming practices and have engaged in laser leveling to reduce water runoff. Groundwater is used to supplement water allocations from the Delta.
Still, with some farms receiving only 10% of their previous water allocation, the human toll has been grave. Many in the highly skilled labor force that operate computer-based machinery and irrigation systems have been laid off. Unemployment in some communities is as high as 40%, bankruptcies abound and many residents wait all day in food lines to feed their starving families.
Role of Nancy Pelosi
In the Central Valley farmland water rationing, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has played a pivotal role. Although she circumvented ESA requirements for two endangered species on one of her investment properties in San Martin, California, and subverted environmentalists who objected to developing San Francisco's Presidio by writing legislation to privatize the property and offer them low-cost leases, Pelosi has severely restricted water for farming in the Central Valley.
The first major water reduction to the Central Valley, the CVPIA, was authored by Pelosi cronies in 1992 as stated above. At the same time, she welcomed former U.S.S.R. President and agronomist Mikhail Gorbachev and the American branch of his Gorbachev Foundation as her first tenant at the Presidio. With the willing assistance of Pelosi and her close associate Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), Gorbachev was able to implement a plan to convert U.S. military bases for civilian use as centers of "global sustainability" and move into the Presidio offices. There, Gorbachev established a series of nongovernmental organizations to further his agenda to conduct research on global political and environmental issues.
The ties of Pelosi and Pelosi associates to a former Communist Party leader and advocate of a "New World Order," which endeavors to destroy the free market and capitalism and bring about global governance, is suspect at a minimum. The U.S. economy is intricately interconnected with government. Change could occur through increases in public ownership of property and in government control, plus wealth redistribution, all of which are being affected now by water restrictions.
Limiting food production is an ideal way to undermine a nation's food supply and usher in public control of a nation's wealth. Food can then be sold at "fair" prices set by the government according to standardized health and environmental standards. Healthy free market competition that encourages product diversity and innovation is thus replaced by a government system of equitable distribution. That restrictive water policies ensuring greater control of property usage and the food supply coincided with the launching of the Gorbachev Foundation's American presence is cause for grave concern.
For nearly 20 years, California's water availability has been precariously tied to decisions made by bureaucrats and politicians using the power of the Endangered Species Act. The effects of the far-reaching ESA could ultimately lead to the destruction of one of the most fertile valleys in the world, the reduction of the nation's food supply and greater dependence on foreign food sources that don't meet high U.S. food standards. The use of this overriding legislation that mandates federal control of our nation's land and water is representative of the overall trend in this country of increased government intrusion into the lives of its citizens. That a statutory decree exists that can override human suffering in the service of preserving animal habitats is a serious indictment of our government's commitment to preserve liberty and the American way of life.
Rifqa Bary must return to her parents in Ohio Rick Moran [...]A brief synopsis of the story; a 17 year old girl converts to Christianity and fears that she will be killed by her family. She runs away to Florida with the help of some Christian pastors and for the last couple of months, she has fought to stay there. According to CNN , that fight is now over: The ruling was a victory for parents Mohamed and Aysha Bary, who had requested that their daughter's custody be transferred to Ohio while other issues in the case are settled. The teen's attorney, John Stemburger, who leads a Christian advocacy organization, opposed the move. Seventeen-year-old Rifqa Bary left her family in Columbus, Ohio, in July and took refuge in the home of a minister in Orlando, Florida. The girl was later moved into foster care after she said in an affidavit that her Muslim father had threatened her after finding out about her conversion. Her father has denied the allegation. In Tuesday's ruling, Judge Daniel Dawson said it was in Bary's best interest for her emergency custody continue in Ohio. The transfer will not happen until the teen's immigration status is determined, however, the judge said. Attorneys for the parents, who are from Sri Lanka, said required immigration documents will be submitted to the court within two weeks. A status hearing has been set for October 23 in case the paperwork has not been filed. The ruling follows months of legal wrangling, including the affidavit from the teenager claiming that her father was pressured by the family's mosque in Ohio to "deal with the situation," referring to her conversion. In an earlier court filing, Rifqa Bary alleged that her father said, "If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me!" The teenager claims her father added, "I will kill you!" Mohamed Bary, 47, has denied the accusations. Perhaps we'll never know how much truth is in young Rifqa's words. It is obvious that she was genuinely frightened. But was she imagining the danger? The father swears he never threatened her and that she can practice any religion she chooses. But I have a feeling if the father had said those things, Ms. Bary would not have run
Update: Personal Failure unwittingly brings up a good point: Our legal system would have protected Rifqa had she gotten pregnant and wanted an abortion, but it leaves her in danger of her life for becoming a Christian. What has this country come to?
An Ohio judge may have just set up another "honor killing," common in extreme Muslim cultures when a family member leaves the religion. From American Thinker:
Rifqa Bary must return to her parents in Ohio
[...]A brief synopsis of the story; a 17 year old girl converts to Christianity and fears that she will be killed by her family. She runs away to Florida with the help of some Christian pastors and for the last couple of months, she has fought to stay there.
According to CNN , that fight is now over:
The ruling was a victory for parents Mohamed and Aysha Bary, who had requested that their daughter's custody be transferred to Ohio while other issues in the case are settled. The teen's attorney, John Stemburger, who leads a Christian advocacy organization, opposed the move.
Seventeen-year-old Rifqa Bary left her family in Columbus, Ohio, in July and took refuge in the home of a minister in Orlando, Florida. The girl was later moved into foster care after she said in an affidavit that her Muslim father had threatened her after finding out about her conversion. Her father has denied the allegation.
In Tuesday's ruling, Judge Daniel Dawson said it was in Bary's best interest for her emergency custody continue in Ohio.
The transfer will not happen until the teen's immigration status is determined, however, the judge said.
Attorneys for the parents, who are from Sri Lanka, said required immigration documents will be submitted to the court within two weeks. A status hearing has been set for October 23 in case the paperwork has not been filed.
The ruling follows months of legal wrangling, including the affidavit from the teenager claiming that her father was pressured by the family's mosque in Ohio to "deal with the situation," referring to her conversion. In an earlier court filing, Rifqa Bary alleged that her father said, "If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me!" The teenager claims her father added, "I will kill you!" Mohamed Bary, 47, has denied the accusations.
Perhaps we'll never know how much truth is in young Rifqa's words. It is obvious that she was genuinely frightened. But was she imagining the danger? The father swears he never threatened her and that she can practice any religion she chooses. But I have a feeling if the father had said those things, Ms. Bary would not have run
Did you catch that? She's 17 anyways! Why not have the state hold on to her for another year until she becomes an adult to prevent the significant chance that the family will wisk her off to Siri Lanka and kill her for becoming a Christian? Do you think if her family had been extremist Christians and she converted to Muslim the judge would have ruled the same way?
FROM: Marc Mutty, Chair, Stand for Marriage Maine
RE: URGENT DEVELOPMENT: Marriage Under Financial Assault
We knew we were being vastly outspent from the fact that the No on 1 campaign was able to air their advertising upwards of 50% more than our Yes on 1 campaign ads. We had a clue that the other side was awash in money because of the dozens of paid staff members they have on board their campaign. But we never dreamed the situation was as dire as it is: our opponents have raised approximately $1.6 more than we have and are conducting a financial assault on the institution of marriage. Overall, they have raised an astonishing $2.7 million from gay marriage supporters across the country!
We are in desperate need of additional financial support or we risk losing because our opponents are attempting to buy themselves an election – and destroy the institution of marriage in the process.
The latest financial reports detailing the amount of money that has come in for both sides of the Question 1 campaign shows that our committee, Stand for Marriage Maine has raised approximately $1.1 million while our opponents have raised about 2.5 times more than we have. This is an astonishing financial advantage our opponents have amassed. It explains why they were able to be on the air with ads nearly three weeks before our campaign was able to begin advertising. It explains why they can afford to operate multiple campaign headquarters. It explains how they can afford a statewide staff of field organizers and operate dozens of phone banks. And it explains why the institution of marriage is teetering on the ledge – at risk of being forever redefined in Maine. Our opponents are raising money from across the country from gay marriage supporters who see an opportunity to win their first victory at the ballot box in the history of the nation.
We cannot let them get away with this. We cannot let homosexual marriage activists from virtually every state in the nation decide that marriage will be redefined in Maine. Please don’t let our opponents succeed with this financial assault on marriage. Will you please, right now, make a generous donation to our campaign?
The good news is that even though we are being vastly outspent, we have run a financially prudent and efficient campaign. Our polling shows that we are dead-even right now and in a good position to win the campaign. Voters recall our advertising more so than the ads from the other side. We are defining Question 1 on our terms. And we know that we will win when voters come to understand the many consequences to families, children and society as a whole if same-sex marriage is legalized in Maine.
The only way our opponents can win is if they try to confuse the issue by running millions of dollars in advertising with false claims that we are lying about the consequences of legalizing homosexual marriage. They don’t want to defend the teaching of homosexual marriage to young children in public schools, so they are spending millions to try to deny and deny. They don’t want to talk about individuals, small businesses and religious groups being sued for refusing to support homosexual marriage, so they are spending millions to calls us liars. And they don’t want to explain to voters why the law they sponsored and advocated strips from Maine’s marriage statutes the interests of nurturing children, so they are spending millions making the oxymoronic claim that we are trying to “harm children.” We are trying to prevent 5, 6 and 7 year old children from being taught about homosexual marriage in school against the wishes of their parents and we are accused of “harming children?” If it weren’t so serious, this would be like describing an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ situation.
But it IS so serious. Our campaign strategists, who helped pass Proposition 8 in California and who have won dozens of initiative campaigns around the country, tell us that we cannot win if we continue to be outspent as we have to this point. It is amazing that we are still in a dead heat. We’ve had to cut our voter contact program dramatically. Every week we’ve cut our advertising budget. We’ve eliminated a statewide bus tour that we had planned for next week. We’ve had to cut back on staffing. And collateral materials. And direct mail. Our grassroots organizing has suffered.
Yet still we are in a position to pass Question 1. This is a testament to your strong support and to the common sense of average Mainers who know in their heart that marriage is worth preserving.
But let’s not fool ourselves. We have to raise more money, right now, if we are to pass Question 1. Please make a sacrificial contribution today, as if the survival of marriage depended on it.
Because, quite literally, it does.
The campaign reports made available today lay bare the falsehood of our opponents’ claim that they have a homegrown, grassroots Maine-based campaign. The truth is their support has come mostly from the gay activist political elite from all corners of the nation, including Hollywood, Colorado, New York, Massachusetts, and the Democratic national political machine, Act Blue.com. They have raised money from virtually every state in the nation.
Why are homosexual marriage activists pouring money into Maine? Because never before have they been able to convince voters to approve homosexual marriage. Voters in thirty states have considered this issue, and in all thirty states they have voted to preserve traditional marriage and reject homosexual marriage. But our opponents think they can win in Maine. We are a small state. Raising millions of dollars to spend here will make a big difference. Recruiting hundreds of volunteers to come to Maine will make a big difference. And if they can win in Maine it would be historic. They will use a victory to attempt to convince the media that the mood of the nation has changed and that it is time for America to also abandon the God-created idea of marriage.
Will you let them get away with it?
So much is riding on the Question 1 election. We have three weeks left. We have three weeks to close the financial deficit we are in. We have three weeks to add to our advertising campaign. We have three weeks to buttress our grassroots operation. We have three weeks to talk to Maine voters about the importance of traditional marriage, and the consequences of abandoning it in favor of homosexual marriage.
But all this must start right now – today – and it must start with you and me. We’ve learned an important lesson. Our opponents are determined to do whatever they can to secure victory. We must respond, and respond now. It is up to you. There is no one but you. The only question is, will you be there for us when the fight for marriage needs you the most? We pray you will be.
Thank you for all your efforts to defend God’s precious institution of marriage. We look forward to your continued help. We are counting on you at this critical time.
In a shameless ploy of dirty-political complicity, CNN and other liberal news outlets are joining forces with Obama's "Dis-information Czar" to smear the most outspoken opponents of Democrats' secret Health Care Bill to push for its passage.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday that Fox News operates "almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. . . . We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”It is understandable that the White House would be upset with the only cable news organization that actually reports on it's corrupt officials like former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones and Obama's close ties with the child prostitution-supporting ACORN. But they have never come out this strong before. Could it be a coincidence that their press-bullying actions coincide with their last great push for their government health care takeover?
Well, it appears that the fringe media is also doing their own part for the White House. In another scandal of Rather-gate proportions, CNN and MSNBC aired fabricated racist quotes supposedly made by Rush Limbaugh. It has been found that these quotes were taken from a Socialist Worker's Party website, whose spokesman they put on air to bash Limbaugh. Limbaugh has corrected the slander, and now he threatens to sue. CNN’s Rick Sanchez responded to Limbaugh's accusation of willful slander with: “that does not take away...that there are other quotes...which many people in...minority communities do find offensive” [audio available here]. Sanchez broadcast the quote yesterday without any source, and made no retraction of it.
The fringe media has also made the following recent attacks on Limbaugh and other conservative talkers:
Keith Olbermann on MSNBC said that Limbaugh's relationship to Beck is "like spreading syphilis.Are all these attack by Obama and his liberal media buddies on Limbaugh and Fox News just a coincidence? Or are they in the fight of their lives to seize a fifth of the nation's economy, like they did General Motors and our banks? Goebbels anyone?
Chris Matthews on MSNBC said Limbaugh is 'Phone Sex' for Salesmen.
On MSNBC, Pulitzer Prize winner Karen Hunter Called Limbaugh a plantation owner.
Fox Sports and others are spreading another fabricated quote that Limbaugh praised MLK's assassination. USA Today, ABC, and many others have joined on the anti-Limbaugh band wagon.
An MSNBC host asked if he could shoot a Republican spokesman, a death threat.
Chris Matthews on MSNBC fantasized about blowing up Rush Limbaugh with a bomb:"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?
The Senate Finance Committee approved its version of nationalized health care with a 14-9 vote. It will cost families $1,700 each year.
Every American soldier, fallen or not, deserves a homecoming like this. Very touching...
Killed in action the week before, the body of Sergeant First Class John C. Beale was returned to Falcon Field in Peachtree City, Georgia , just south of Atlanta , on June 11, 2009 . The Henry County Police Department escorted the procession to the funeral home in McDonough , Georgia . A simple notice in local papers indicated the road route to be taken and the approximate time.
"So that others may live..."
Barack Obama nominated Chai Feldblum for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Feldblum also promotes polygamy.
Hope and Change.
DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse:
The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize...
Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize – an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride – unless of course you are the Republican Party...
The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it's an embarrassing label to claim.
Top Ten Reasons Obama Doesn't Deserve A Nobel Prize
10. Gave the green light for Scotland to release the Lockerbie Bomber
9. Wrought whole-sale destruction on our economy and violated the constitution
8. Refused to help murdered pro-democracy protesters in Iran
7. Punished Honduras for impeaching a dictator
6. Supports infanticide, voted for partial birth abortion
5. Snubbed Nobel winner Dalai Lama to appease brutal China
4. Turned against Israel and went on his "apology tour" of America
3. Promised to close Gitmo and stop torture, but didn't
2. Promised to get out of Iraq but didn't
1. Hasn't Actually Achieved Anything Peaceful, or anything for that matter
Obviously, the "main stream" media are hard of hearing and seeing. About 2 million mad-as-hell taxpayers assembling in Washington, D.C. for the largest-ever (most well-behaved ever, most respectful ever) protest did not make it onto their radar screens (or our TV screens).
They need our help. Maybe we cannot repeat an assembly of 2 million mad-as-hell taxpaying patriots in one place, but surely those who longed to go and couldn’t would love to be a part of Operation "Can You Hear Us Now?" I’ll bet for every one patriot who went to D.C. there are 10-20 more who wished they could have been there as well.
Well my friends, HAVE I GOT A PLAN FOR YOU…
It’s called, "Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?" Here’s how it might work, but feel free to improvise!
Step 1: Contact all your freedom-loving, American-loving, free-speech loving friends and get together to plan. Draw from your local Tea Party group or 9/12 group or other friends. Protest all things you did in D.C. – plus the complicit media!
Step 2: Identify local left-wing media outlets (most likely TV, since no one reads newspapers anymore).
Step 3: Plan a rally for October 17th, 2009. If you have enough folks, visit multiple sites concurrently, otherwise pick your least favorite, liberally biased outlet as ground zero. Time it for max participation for the working (i.e. tax-paying) class. Before the AM news or at the evening 6 o’clock hour might be good (local time).
On the tail of the liberal comedy program Saturday Night Live scathingly criticizing Obama for accomplishing nothing so far in office, last night the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to him. The world is still scratching their heads. So far Obama has:
- Not pulled the US out of Iraq or Afghanistan
- Not closed Gitmo
- Not convinced Iran or North Korea to stop building and testing Nuclear weapons
- Not convinced Israel and Palestine to stop killing each other (or all of the middle east from threatening to destroy Israel, for that matter)
- Not convinced China to stop killing the protesters of their brutal occupation of Tibet
- Not convinced Iran to stop torturing and killing the protesters of its rigged election
- Giving terrorists the right not to tell us what plans they have to kill Americans
- Helping terrorists prepare for interrogations by letting them know just how far DOJ officials can go to extract information
- Putting DOJ officials under criminal investigation so that no official will ever give advice again on how to keep the country dafe from terrorists
- Apologizing again and again to America's enemies for protecting our nation's interests and promoting democracy
- Made good friends with Socialist-Fascist leaders Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez , Moammar Gaddafi, etc.
- Made our former allies United Kingdom, France, etc. very worried about the future
- Cancelled the promised missile defense shield, leaving Poland, Ukraine and the Czech Republic wide open to the growing nuclear threat of Iran and Russia.
- Condemned and raised sanctions against the people of Honduras for throwing out their president when he tried to install himself as "dictator for life."
- 1994 Peace Prize to the terrorist Yasser Arafat
- 2002 Peace Prize to Former President Jimmy Carter for his incompetent, anti-Israel work on peace in the middle east
- 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore for his allarmist and factually disproven propaganda piece on man-made global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." (Too bad for him the globe is now cooling)
Britain’s Sky News can only come up the explanation that Obama won the prize for his proximity to the international community's socialist agenda: Obama won the prize for "not being George Bush."
Alfred Nobel (who incidentally was the inventor of dynamite) would be rolling over in his grave knowing the liberal crowd that has taken over distributing his money.
This video includes a censored, swearing puppet, but the point is right on the money. America's schools have by far the most funding in the world but they don't even make the top ten in test scores. Now Obama wants to put kids in school for up to 30% longer. Do liberals really believe that more time and even more money will really help?
The real problem is that since teacher unions are so strong, it is impossible to get rid of bad teachers. An American solution would be to allow students to go to whatever school they want, thereby putting pressure on under-performing schools to shape up or close. But you can bet teacher's unions won't let that happen.
In a world so plagued by teenage pregnancies and children growing up without fathers, you would think the media would promote responsible fatherhood. Unfortunately, their desire to "get Sarah Palin" out weighs any sense of moral responsibility.
This commercial for "Wonderful" pistachios makes fun of Levi Johnston getting Bristol, Sarah Palin's daughter, pregnant and says "[Talking about his nuts,] Now Levi Johnston does it with protection." Katie Connolly at Newsweek calls the commercial "amusing."
This is a letter from Glen and Wendy [censored to protect their identity]
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:38 AM
The news media wants to downplay the 9-12 March on Washington by saying there were 10's of thousands of protesters. That is outlandish. Home Land Security and a group at U. of Illinois trained in crowd estimates based on overhead photography independently came up with 1.2 million. Some groups with bias on the other side gave estimates of 1.7 to 2.0 million. I have been to 6 World Series games and know full well what a crowd of 10's of thousands looks like. The 9-12 March was NOT 10's of thousands. Oh, don't be fooled by pictures taken from the Capitol looking west to the Washington Monument. We were not allowed on the grass of the Mall. They claimed it was reserved, but no one used it. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind why we were not allowed on the Mall (grassy area between the Capitol and the Washington Monument). It is so when people look at photos of the scene, which is what is normally used for giant crowds (Martin Luther King speech, inaugurations, etc.), they will see no protesters there. It gives the illusion that the crowd, while somewhat significant (10's of thousands), was not one of the largest in DC history. In fact, some news media showed side by side photos to get this point across. Had
we been allowed on the Mall, we most certainly would have filled it all the way to the Washington Monument (about a mile). Instead, we filled the streets on both sides running parallel to the Mall (one a 4-lane and the other a 6-lane) all the way to the Washington Monument. Also, what you don't see in those photos are the hundred thousand or so people on the north and south sides of the Capitol steps.
The March was scheduled to begin at 11AM so we planned to arrive at 10:30. We were two blocks north of Pennsylvania Ave. and had to walk west to get to the street where we would turn south direct to Freedom Plaza. At the first intersection, we glanced to our left and saw nothing but people totally filling Pennsylvania Ave intersection marching east toward the Capitol. Our hearts soared. We had both quietly been concerned that "We the people" would not show up in significant numbers. We began walking as fast as we could to Freedom Plaza.
When we got there, it was like a great sorrow had been lifted. The joy and pride I can't really describe. Think of how sad you were on 9-11 2001. This was the polar opposite. Looking east, there was an ocean of people already marching, block after block after block of them. The Plaza was overflowing and from every direction as people were rushing to join the March. It was like a dam breaking in multiple spots with people flooding in to be a part of history.
We did not leave until it concluded at 4 PM. There was not one arrest. No burning police cars, no broken storefront windows, and American flags were held high, not burned. There were chants of "USA USA" and "Can you hear us now." Hundreds of thousands of people singing God Bless America as we approached the Capitol. In all that time, I never heard a single person ask about religion, or political party affiliation. Race and gender did not matter. In fact, what everyone asked of each other was, "Where are you from." We were all so very thankful that the other person came to make a difference. Some came even though it was a serious burden financially. People came from all 50 states, some were in wheelchairs others pushed strollers.
On this day, all 1.2 million people came together to stand up for our Republic. It was a time to do our small part for the men, some barefoot, who braved the winter at Valley Forge, for those, both blue and gray, who gave the ultimate at places like Shiloh, Gettysburg and Bull Run, for the men and boys who leaped off the Higgins Boats at Omaha Beach and sank to the bottom never to rise and those who did make it to the beach only to be torn apart by pieces of metal, for the Frozen Chosen in Korea, the Vietnam Veterans who suffered 13-month long nightmares only to come home and be spit on, for the men and women who gave their lives to free the people of Kuwait and Iraq and for those now in Afghanistan. It was such a small thing we were called on to do last Saturday.
To those who did not make the 9-12 March, if this sounds melodramatic, well you just had to be there. I hope that next time you will be.