Saturday, July 31, 2010

Nobel Laureate Al Gore Loses Mind During Public Address

(RattPo) New York 07-31-2010


Today, Nobel Laureate, Al Gore was delivering an address to a crowd in New York, when a gust of wind blew the text of his address from his podium.

Witnesses say, that for a brief moment, Mr. Gore appeared to have a glazed look in his eyes, which was described by several onlookers, as that of a deer 'caught in the headlights of an oncoming car'.

Mr. Gore recovered from the loss of his notes moments later by drawing on his own unprepared thoughts to finish his address. Departing from his original address, due to the loss of his notes, Mr. Gore began stammering and stuttering words and phrases such as, “Th-th-the people were d-d-disenfranchised in 2000”, “dimpled ch-ch-ch-chads”, “I should have been p-president”, “Don't bogart that j-joint”, and “Tipper, come home, and l-l-loan me a few anti-depressants." and " She started it, that m-m-m-m-masseuse touched my junk first."

As photographers busily clicked away with their cameras to capture the moment, a dramatic photo was taken, capturing the last remaining circuit in Al Gore's overtaxed brain exploding into an aneurysm.


The Moment Al Gore's cranial contents entered the atmosphere

Witnesses say that a small mushroom cloud erupted from the top of Al Gore's head. Scientists say that enough fluff and inert matter from inside Al Gore's cranium was thrown up into the atmosphere to block out the sun, which could result in a nuclear winter, and global cooling.


Mr. Gore was rushed to a local hospital where his is recuperating and is described as being in excellent condition.

Doctors performed emergency surgery, and painstakingly re-stuffed Al Gore's deflated cranium with the contents of two ashtrays, a decorative pillow taken from an easy chair in the doctor's lounge, and the contents of three soiled pampers taken from the newborn nursery.

When asked about Mr. Gore's prospects of a recovery, Dr. Rattingpoe stated, “Mr. Gore should be up and around in several hours spreading half-truths, junk science, and his normal banal rhetoric, just as he has always done.”

The estranged Mrs. Gore could not be reached for comment due to her being bombed out of her skull on marijuana, anti-depressants and the now banned nutritional supplement, Ephedra.

It will be quite apparent to right thinking conservative, that this is a parody news report. Meanwhile, the usual cadre of leftists, progressives, and global warming/climate change proponents, will buy this parody 'hook, line and sinker', which will give them an excuse to toke up, and to consume vast quantities of  the hallucinogenic, absinthe.
(RattPo) New York 07-31-2010


Today, Nobel Laureate, Al Gore was delivering an address to a crowd in New York, when a gust of wind blew the text of his address from his podium.

Witnesses say, that for a brief moment, Mr. Gore appeared to have a glazed look in his eyes, which was described by several onlookers, as that of a deer 'caught in the headlights of an oncoming car'.

Mr. Gore recovered from the loss of his notes moments later by drawing on his own unprepared thoughts to finish his address. Departing from his original address, due to the loss of his notes, Mr. Gore began stammering and stuttering words and phrases such as, “Th-th-the people were d-d-disenfranchised in 2000”, “dimpled ch-ch-ch-chads”, “I should have been p-president”, “Don't bogart that j-joint”, and “Tipper, come home, and l-l-loan me a few anti-depressants." and " She started it, that m-m-m-m-masseuse touched my junk first."

As photographers busily clicked away with their cameras to capture the moment, a dramatic photo was taken, capturing the last remaining circuit in Al Gore's overtaxed brain exploding into an aneurysm.


The Moment Al Gore's cranial contents entered the atmosphere

Witnesses say that a small mushroom cloud erupted from the top of Al Gore's head. Scientists say that enough fluff and inert matter from inside Al Gore's cranium was thrown up into the atmosphere to block out the sun, which could result in a nuclear winter, and global cooling.


Mr. Gore was rushed to a local hospital where his is recuperating and is described as being in excellent condition.

Doctors performed emergency surgery, and painstakingly re-stuffed Al Gore's deflated cranium with the contents of two ashtrays, a decorative pillow taken from an easy chair in the doctor's lounge, and the contents of three soiled pampers taken from the newborn nursery.

When asked about Mr. Gore's prospects of a recovery, Dr. Rattingpoe stated, “Mr. Gore should be up and around in several hours spreading half-truths, junk science, and his normal banal rhetoric, just as he has always done.”

The estranged Mrs. Gore could not be reached for comment due to her being bombed out of her skull on marijuana, anti-depressants and the now banned nutritional supplement, Ephedra.

It will be quite apparent to right thinking conservative, that this is a parody news report. Meanwhile, the usual cadre of leftists, progressives, and global warming/climate change proponents, will buy this parody 'hook, line and sinker', which will give them an excuse to toke up, and to consume vast quantities of  the hallucinogenic, absinthe.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Public Housing

The problem  with public housing is that the residents are  not the owners. 
 
The people that live  in the house did not earn the house, but were  loaned the property from the true owners, the  taxpayers. Because of this, the residents do not  have the "pride of ownership" that comes with the hard work necessary. In fact, the opposite  happens and the residents resent their benefactors because the very house is a constant reminder that they themselves did not earn the right to live in the house. They do not appreciate the value of the property and see no  need to maintain or respect it in any  way.


The result is the same  whether you are talking about a studio apartment  or a magnificent mansion full of priceless  antiques. If the people who live there do not feel they earned the privilege, they will make  this known through their actions. The picture  below illustrates the point.






 


This article is parody. It is not racist, just because it makes fun of Obama.  Had it been a parody of G.W. Bush, Kool-Aid slurping Libtards worldwide, would have their green, THC stained tongues all over their flat-panel monitors in agreement, Get over yourselves.
The problem  with public housing is that the residents are  not the owners. 
 
The people that live  in the house did not earn the house, but were  loaned the property from the true owners, the  taxpayers. Because of this, the residents do not  have the "pride of ownership" that comes with the hard work necessary. In fact, the opposite  happens and the residents resent their benefactors because the very house is a constant reminder that they themselves did not earn the right to live in the house. They do not appreciate the value of the property and see no  need to maintain or respect it in any  way.


The result is the same  whether you are talking about a studio apartment  or a magnificent mansion full of priceless  antiques. If the people who live there do not feel they earned the privilege, they will make  this known through their actions. The picture  below illustrates the point.






 


This article is parody. It is not racist, just because it makes fun of Obama.  Had it been a parody of G.W. Bush, Kool-Aid slurping Libtards worldwide, would have their green, THC stained tongues all over their flat-panel monitors in agreement, Get over yourselves.

Activists Missing After Declaring “War on Leather” at Motorcycle Rally


Johnstown, PA (RattPo) – Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists going missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers “duct taped inside several fast food restaurant dumpsters,” according to police officials.

“Something just went wrong,” said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. “Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong.”


The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activist groups, “growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats,” decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event “in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats.” “In fact,” said the organizer, “motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it…ergo, they should stop.”

According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960’s era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting “you’re murderers” to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.

“They peed on me!!!” charged one activist. “They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me ‘La Trene’, and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!”

“I…I was trying to show my outrage at a man with a heavy leather jacket, and he…he didn’t even care. I called him a murderer, and all he said was, ‘You can’t prove that.’ Next thing I know he forced me to ride on the back of his motorcycle all day, and would not let me off, because his girl friend was out of town and I was almost a woman.”

Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers “farted on their heads.”

Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed “surprise” at the allegations.

“That’s preposterous,” said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee. “We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party! What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome.”

When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activists meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and ‘farting on their heads,’ the organizer declined to comment in detail. “That’s just our secret handshake,” assured the organizer.

This article is parody. Its authorship is unknown. If you believe this article, then you're probably a Kool-Aid slurping fool. You probably voted for Barack Obama. If you're an animal rights activist, get over yourself. Calm down, put the bong away and go eat a steak. You'll feel better.

Johnstown, PA (RattPo) – Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists going missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers “duct taped inside several fast food restaurant dumpsters,” according to police officials.

“Something just went wrong,” said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. “Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong.”


The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activist groups, “growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats,” decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event “in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats.” “In fact,” said the organizer, “motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it…ergo, they should stop.”

According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960’s era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting “you’re murderers” to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.

“They peed on me!!!” charged one activist. “They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me ‘La Trene’, and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!”

“I…I was trying to show my outrage at a man with a heavy leather jacket, and he…he didn’t even care. I called him a murderer, and all he said was, ‘You can’t prove that.’ Next thing I know he forced me to ride on the back of his motorcycle all day, and would not let me off, because his girl friend was out of town and I was almost a woman.”

Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers “farted on their heads.”

Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed “surprise” at the allegations.

“That’s preposterous,” said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee. “We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party! What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome.”

When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activists meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and ‘farting on their heads,’ the organizer declined to comment in detail. “That’s just our secret handshake,” assured the organizer.

This article is parody. Its authorship is unknown. If you believe this article, then you're probably a Kool-Aid slurping fool. You probably voted for Barack Obama. If you're an animal rights activist, get over yourself. Calm down, put the bong away and go eat a steak. You'll feel better.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Obama's Pick for DOJ Post


President Obama has picked James Cole to become Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and if confirmed will be running the day to day operations of the Department. His nomination was approved July 21 by the Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee with no Republican support.

With a long history of being soft on terrorism and opposing our military’s policy of detaining terrorists at GITMO, Cole views the 9/11 attack on America as a criminal case instead of an Act of War!

Cole represented a member of the Saudi royal family, Prince Naif Bin Abdulazis Al Saud, in a lawsuit filed by the families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attack. This is the same Al Saud who ran the Al Haramain Foundation which was designated as a facilitator of terrorism in 2004 for diverting funds to Al Quada.

On September 9, 2002 (just a year after the 9/11 attack) Cole wrote an editorial in the Legal Times claiming the attack was a “crime” and not an act of war and that the DOJ had no right to treat terrorists as enemy combatants.

During his hearing in June Cole refused to say whether he believed that Osama bin Laden should be tried in a civilian court or by military commission. He stated, “I believe that such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the suspect’s capture.”

Cole has consistently viewed terrorists such as bin Laden as criminals instead of the cold blooded terrorists they are. Cole, like many in the Obama administration, are truly living in an alternate reality.

President Obama has picked James Cole to become Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and if confirmed will be running the day to day operations of the Department. His nomination was approved July 21 by the Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee with no Republican support.

With a long history of being soft on terrorism and opposing our military’s policy of detaining terrorists at GITMO, Cole views the 9/11 attack on America as a criminal case instead of an Act of War!

Cole represented a member of the Saudi royal family, Prince Naif Bin Abdulazis Al Saud, in a lawsuit filed by the families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attack. This is the same Al Saud who ran the Al Haramain Foundation which was designated as a facilitator of terrorism in 2004 for diverting funds to Al Quada.

On September 9, 2002 (just a year after the 9/11 attack) Cole wrote an editorial in the Legal Times claiming the attack was a “crime” and not an act of war and that the DOJ had no right to treat terrorists as enemy combatants.

During his hearing in June Cole refused to say whether he believed that Osama bin Laden should be tried in a civilian court or by military commission. He stated, “I believe that such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, based on all the relevant facts and circumstances at the time of the suspect’s capture.”

Cole has consistently viewed terrorists such as bin Laden as criminals instead of the cold blooded terrorists they are. Cole, like many in the Obama administration, are truly living in an alternate reality.

Democrats Keep Door Open to Dangerous Lame Duck Session

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
7.29.2010

Washington, Jul 29 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement after offering a resolution on the floor of the House of Representatives calling on Congress not to hold a lame duck session after Election Day for the purpose of passing hugely unpopular legislation like a national energy tax, enormous deficit spending bills, and the kickback to Big Labor known as “Card Check.”

“Americans are sick and tired of their elected leaders making backroom deals to ram through unpopular, 2000-page bills that no one has read,” said Chairman Price.  “They are sick of out-of-touch politicians, and they are tired of being ignored.  A number of Democrats, including members of their leadership, have recently expressed a desire to ignore the public will and use a lame duck session to pass liberal legislation Americans do not want.  Today I gave my Democrat colleagues an opportunity to show they are finally ready to listen to the American people.

“Our system of government rests upon the consent of the governed, but it is quite clear that Democrats no longer have Americans’ consent.  The public’s trust in this Congress has been repeatedly broken.  Voting for a national energy tax and other items on the liberal wish list in a lame duck session would shatter it beyond repair.  Republicans are fully prepared to do what is necessary to restore Americans’ trust in their elected representatives.  We know it will be a long road, but it is one well worth traveling.”

Note: Instead of taking a clear stand on this issue, House Democrats chose to delay a vote on the Price resolution. The text of the resolution is available
here.
###

Congressman Tom Price is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
7.29.2010

Washington, Jul 29 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement after offering a resolution on the floor of the House of Representatives calling on Congress not to hold a lame duck session after Election Day for the purpose of passing hugely unpopular legislation like a national energy tax, enormous deficit spending bills, and the kickback to Big Labor known as “Card Check.”

“Americans are sick and tired of their elected leaders making backroom deals to ram through unpopular, 2000-page bills that no one has read,” said Chairman Price.  “They are sick of out-of-touch politicians, and they are tired of being ignored.  A number of Democrats, including members of their leadership, have recently expressed a desire to ignore the public will and use a lame duck session to pass liberal legislation Americans do not want.  Today I gave my Democrat colleagues an opportunity to show they are finally ready to listen to the American people.

“Our system of government rests upon the consent of the governed, but it is quite clear that Democrats no longer have Americans’ consent.  The public’s trust in this Congress has been repeatedly broken.  Voting for a national energy tax and other items on the liberal wish list in a lame duck session would shatter it beyond repair.  Republicans are fully prepared to do what is necessary to restore Americans’ trust in their elected representatives.  We know it will be a long road, but it is one well worth traveling.”

Note: Instead of taking a clear stand on this issue, House Democrats chose to delay a vote on the Price resolution. The text of the resolution is available here.
###

Congressman Tom Price is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Bloggers just dodged a bullet with DISCLOSE Act


Yesterday, S-3295, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act failed of cloture, 57-41 with one absence and one member voting "Present." From the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the bill's sponsors and their allies, "money has spoken" to sink the bill. In reality that vote is a holding action for the First Amendment to the Constitution, against an allied political and media establishment bent on re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine, as articulated first by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Wayne Coy (D) in 1949 (and not, as erroneously supposed, by Chairman Newton N. Minow, D, who served as Chairman under the Kennedy administration), basically said that any station manager allowing anyone to make a controversial statement in an FCC-licensed medium (first radio, then TV) must allow "equal time" for others to reply. The practical consequence was twofold:

  1. Station managements would air editorials and then "invite those having opposing viewpoints to request time to reply." The requestors were typically rank amateurs, and the contrast between the polished performances by the station managers and editorial directors on the one hand, and the unskilled performances by the reply requestors on the other hand, was often too painful even for regular devotees of the local Improv. (Gary Cooper, they weren't.) Result: the station's opinion carried the day, because the opponents often looked like unlearned rubes. (And indeed one memorable but fictitious editorial reply requestor, Archie Bunker as portrayed by Carroll O'Connor, deliberately acted like one.)
  2. Radio stations avoided "talk" and chose music, on the theory that music was value-free and morally neutral. That isn't so, actually, but that is not relevant here. What is relevant is that no one had an opportunity to talk about issues except for approved commentators, who often were given a free pass.

In 1969, in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, the Supreme Court held that FCC was correct in telling Red Lion Broadcasting that they must allow someone time to reply to someone who complained that he had been the subject of an ad hominem attack in the course of a "Christian Crusade" that aired on Red Lion stations. After that, no station manager or network programming director dared allow such hard-hitting commentary, fearing bedlam.

In the spring of 1987, FCC chairman Mike Fowler finally revoked the Fairness Doctrine, saying that TV and radio were no longer "scarce" as they once had been. Congress tried to enact the Fairness Doctrine into law then, but President Ronald Reagan vetoed that attempt. In the next year, a new talk jockey named Rush Hudson Limbaugh III inaugurated his "Excellence In Broadcasting Network" and singlehandly saved AM radio from stale-music oblivion. The rest is history--and more to the point, those "music" formats were history, as station after station changed formats to "talk."

What has this to do with the DISCLOSE Act? Everything. Read it for yourself, thanks to the good grassroots folks at OpenCongress.org. Contrary to the much-ballyhooed discussion involving this Act, and that it is a direct attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the DISCLOSE Act doesn't truly "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971," unless one counts moving a few punctuation marks as "amendment." The real meat of the Act is in its proposed amendment to 2 USC 431 Section 324, defining a "coordinated communication." This is either:

  1. "A publicly distributed or disseminated communication" other than one appearing in print (yes, print, not online) or a broadcasting station (and broadcasting does not mean cable, fiber, satellite, or anything other than ATSC, which is the new rabbit ears), that directly refers to any candidate for federal office within 120 days of the Presidential primary season or 90 days in advance of the Congressional primary, or
  2. Anything that reproduces any "campaign material," such as press releases, bumper sticker images, sign designs, or the like.

In other words: bloggers, and indeed anyone who contributes to an online-only site (like examiner.com), are the immediate targets. And so, too, are Fox News Channel, Fox Business Channel, the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh (except maybe for his printed newsletter and radio program--this time), and our favorite hosts Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck--and Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Less than two weeks ago, the Heritage Foundation laid out other objections to the DISCLOSE Act. Among them: it would be easy to forbid any corporation doing business in the United States to engage in campaign activity. The definition of a "foreign-owned corporation" is one in which 20 percent of the shares are foreign-held--and it doesn't matter whether the foreign shareholders are a few, or one (like a Baron Guy de Rothschild or a Lazard Brother), or many individual shareholders who happen to buy American shares that are traded on the London Exchange, the Paris Bourse, etc. And pointedly, labor unions are excepted--which was the specific reason why even Susan Collins, one of the Lamers from Maine, balked. (Her colleague Olympia Snowe said that it was "premature" to take up a measure about which "consensus" was lacking, whatever in James Madison's name that means.)

The implications of this bill go far beyond a mere prohibition against, say, the head of Volkswagenwerk AG trying to influence an election in order to win regulatory exceptions for VWs that don't apply to Fords (or to Government Motors models, the American answer to VWs). If this ever passes (and Senator Harry Reid craftily changed his vote from "Yea" to "Nay" to allow him to move to reconsider the bill later on), then after the bloggers are shut down, Rush Limbaugh (which those same Senators mention only while making warding-off gestures against the Evil Eye) will be the target of a complete shutdown, and AM radio will go back to playing that awful noise that once passed for music and that almost killed it.

True enough, Judge Nap would almost certainly have filed a lawsuit against the government (with Mark Levin as his co-counsel) to get the DISCLOSE Act declared unconstitutional. (That is, one hopes that the Judge would have realized the extent to which he

  1. would have standing, and
  2. would suffer injury.)

But support and defense of the Constitution cannot limit itself to filing suit when some unconstitutional act damages you. Some things require heading off at the pass--and then guarding that pass for as long as is necessary.

Yesterday, S-3295, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act failed of cloture, 57-41 with one absence and one member voting "Present." From the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the bill's sponsors and their allies, "money has spoken" to sink the bill. In reality that vote is a holding action for the First Amendment to the Constitution, against an allied political and media establishment bent on re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine, as articulated first by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Wayne Coy (D) in 1949 (and not, as erroneously supposed, by Chairman Newton N. Minow, D, who served as Chairman under the Kennedy administration), basically said that any station manager allowing anyone to make a controversial statement in an FCC-licensed medium (first radio, then TV) must allow "equal time" for others to reply. The practical consequence was twofold:

  1. Station managements would air editorials and then "invite those having opposing viewpoints to request time to reply." The requestors were typically rank amateurs, and the contrast between the polished performances by the station managers and editorial directors on the one hand, and the unskilled performances by the reply requestors on the other hand, was often too painful even for regular devotees of the local Improv. (Gary Cooper, they weren't.) Result: the station's opinion carried the day, because the opponents often looked like unlearned rubes. (And indeed one memorable but fictitious editorial reply requestor, Archie Bunker as portrayed by Carroll O'Connor, deliberately acted like one.)
  2. Radio stations avoided "talk" and chose music, on the theory that music was value-free and morally neutral. That isn't so, actually, but that is not relevant here. What is relevant is that no one had an opportunity to talk about issues except for approved commentators, who often were given a free pass.

In 1969, in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, the Supreme Court held that FCC was correct in telling Red Lion Broadcasting that they must allow someone time to reply to someone who complained that he had been the subject of an ad hominem attack in the course of a "Christian Crusade" that aired on Red Lion stations. After that, no station manager or network programming director dared allow such hard-hitting commentary, fearing bedlam.

In the spring of 1987, FCC chairman Mike Fowler finally revoked the Fairness Doctrine, saying that TV and radio were no longer "scarce" as they once had been. Congress tried to enact the Fairness Doctrine into law then, but President Ronald Reagan vetoed that attempt. In the next year, a new talk jockey named Rush Hudson Limbaugh III inaugurated his "Excellence In Broadcasting Network" and singlehandly saved AM radio from stale-music oblivion. The rest is history--and more to the point, those "music" formats were history, as station after station changed formats to "talk."

What has this to do with the DISCLOSE Act? Everything. Read it for yourself, thanks to the good grassroots folks at OpenCongress.org. Contrary to the much-ballyhooed discussion involving this Act, and that it is a direct attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the DISCLOSE Act doesn't truly "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971," unless one counts moving a few punctuation marks as "amendment." The real meat of the Act is in its proposed amendment to 2 USC 431 Section 324, defining a "coordinated communication." This is either:

  1. "A publicly distributed or disseminated communication" other than one appearing in print (yes, print, not online) or a broadcasting station (and broadcasting does not mean cable, fiber, satellite, or anything other than ATSC, which is the new rabbit ears), that directly refers to any candidate for federal office within 120 days of the Presidential primary season or 90 days in advance of the Congressional primary, or
  2. Anything that reproduces any "campaign material," such as press releases, bumper sticker images, sign designs, or the like.

In other words: bloggers, and indeed anyone who contributes to an online-only site (like examiner.com), are the immediate targets. And so, too, are Fox News Channel, Fox Business Channel, the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh (except maybe for his printed newsletter and radio program--this time), and our favorite hosts Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck--and Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Less than two weeks ago, the Heritage Foundation laid out other objections to the DISCLOSE Act. Among them: it would be easy to forbid any corporation doing business in the United States to engage in campaign activity. The definition of a "foreign-owned corporation" is one in which 20 percent of the shares are foreign-held--and it doesn't matter whether the foreign shareholders are a few, or one (like a Baron Guy de Rothschild or a Lazard Brother), or many individual shareholders who happen to buy American shares that are traded on the London Exchange, the Paris Bourse, etc. And pointedly, labor unions are excepted--which was the specific reason why even Susan Collins, one of the Lamers from Maine, balked. (Her colleague Olympia Snowe said that it was "premature" to take up a measure about which "consensus" was lacking, whatever in James Madison's name that means.)

The implications of this bill go far beyond a mere prohibition against, say, the head of Volkswagenwerk AG trying to influence an election in order to win regulatory exceptions for VWs that don't apply to Fords (or to Government Motors models, the American answer to VWs). If this ever passes (and Senator Harry Reid craftily changed his vote from "Yea" to "Nay" to allow him to move to reconsider the bill later on), then after the bloggers are shut down, Rush Limbaugh (which those same Senators mention only while making warding-off gestures against the Evil Eye) will be the target of a complete shutdown, and AM radio will go back to playing that awful noise that once passed for music and that almost killed it.

True enough, Judge Nap would almost certainly have filed a lawsuit against the government (with Mark Levin as his co-counsel) to get the DISCLOSE Act declared unconstitutional. (That is, one hopes that the Judge would have realized the extent to which he

  1. would have standing, and
  2. would suffer injury.)

But support and defense of the Constitution cannot limit itself to filing suit when some unconstitutional act damages you. Some things require heading off at the pass--and then guarding that pass for as long as is necessary.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

My Grandfather Was A Democrat


My Grandfather was a Democrat in the Arizona state legislature, in the mid 20th century. He was a sharp attorney, and he had quite a bit of respect from his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Had he been alive today, Sam most likely would have bolted the from the Democrat party. He probably would have become a Republican. That is what Dad has told me. His name was Sam. Sam was a family man, and I have some fond memories of him, from when I was just a toddler. Sam died in 1968 when I was just five years old.

Much of what I know of Sam is from what my Dad has told me, and through the few items, I have read in press clippings. The rest comes from my distant and foggy memories.  Looking back at Sam, and comparing his morality and principles to today’s Liberal (Progressive) Democrats, I often wonder where today’s Democrats have gone wrong.

Sam cared about the little guy, an attitude that was born from Sam's own life experiences. Sam came out of the depression era, having left Oklahoma to move out west in order to seek a better life. Sam settled in Arizona. He knew through personal experience, and with perseverance, that hard work could make a man successful. This is such a novel idea for a Democrat. But then, Sam was not one of today’s Democrats.

Today’s Democrats do not subscribe to the same morals and principles that Sam lived by. Today’s Democrat seems to think that hard work, and perseverance, traits that could give a man an edge in today’s world, are wrong.  Such traits, Democrats believe, could give a person an unfair advantage over someone who just aspires to go through life, just being mediocre, just to get by.

Back when Sam died, America was determined to be its best. The country was poised to land a man on the Moon. Another Democrat had envisioned this spectacular feat. That Democrat spoke of a great vision he had for America. A decade earlier, the great Democrat gave an historical and memorable speech, in which he said: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." President Kennedy said those words on, May 25, 1961. President John F. Kennedy gave that speech, not to appease the Soviet Union in the cold war, as some of his successors would do for our enemies, through their actions of appeasement.

President Kennedy had a goal. He was seeking great prestige for the United States during the cold war, not only to signal America’s willingness to keep up with the Soviet Union, but to beat the Soviets at what would become our own game.

Kennedy was one of those old-time Democrats, who had convictions and principles. He believed in,  'America First' before all others. Kennedy believed in American ingenuity, and he believed in being competitive.  Kennedy believed in the greatness of the American spirit, and of the American people. Such  was a far cry from what Democrats believe today. My Granddad also believed in these things.

Today, the word “Democrat” is a word that is indistinguishable from a handful of other terms that can be freely substituted in place of the word, Democrat. Terms such as  Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, and Communist. Today's Democrats are collectivists. They are the champions of the immoral, the perverse and of those who, while they call themselves progressives, can just as easily label them with terms such as deviants, malcontents and outcasts. In being collectivists, the Democrats have excelled at the game of divisiveness in order to promote its own agenda. Democrats have managed to take all of the different sub groups of illicit humanity, and they have managed to convince all those different groups that Democrats are their voice, and they are their protectors from up on high, in Washington. The Democrats have formed a collective of many different groups of outcasts that the Democrats have divided from mainstream society. They are those who the Democrats have brainwashed into believing that they are the 'disenfranchised.' These groups now make up what is now the Democrat support base. The Democrat voter rolls are rife with those who believe that the Democrats are the voice of all, and those who oppose the Democrat voice, are hateful, mean-spirited, or are bigots.

The problem is that the Democrat party no longer represents the underdog. The Democrats represent the moral decay of America. The Democrats will do any and all things that they can to gain a larger voter base in an effort to hold onto the reins of power. They do this by attacking the very same virtues that offer cohesiveness and stability to a society, which is the very foundation of productivity, and of the success of a society. The Democrats support freedom of choice. However, only when that choice advances the cause of their own agenda. The Democrats support the destruction of the traditional family, by homogenizing the true family in with the alternative family, which the Democrats define as also being 'normal'. In reality, the Democrats are destroying the traditional family, to be replaced by a kind of abnormal, hybrid, pseudo-family.
 
The Democrats champion mediocrity in their attempt to level the playing field for all. The student with a 4.0 GPA is penalized, so that the student with just an average 2.8 GPA has an 'equal' opportunity to go to  university. Forget the student who excels, because of hard work and brilliance. The slow and truant student now defines what success is. That success is measured not by how much a student has learned when he leaves high school. That success is measured by simply having a piece of paper many graduating students cannot read; a diploma. Democrats see success in what percentage of high schoolers graduate. Not whether they can read, or write.

Democrats demand this kind of success, so that the self-esteem of the lowest common denominator of a student is boosted, while the future, and the self-esteem of a truly brilliant and fine mind, from the same graduating class, is wasted and compromised to avoid any competition. Competition, according to Democrats, destroys self-esteem. The lack of competition we see in our schools will find its way into society, which will ultimately destroy a nation’s greatness. This will destroy our nation's ability to compete against the world, which in turn can alter our nation’s destiny into destiny of ruin. To a Democrat, this is his just cause, and is for the good of the American collective.

It seems that the Democrats are endeavoring to strip the gears within the drive-train of our nation's economy, through excessive spending, increased taxation, and heavy burdens upon the small business. We see increased red tape, high taxation. over regulation, and silly little laws and legislation designed to transform the workplace into a social utopia for the 'enjoyment' of the worker The Democrats do not fan the flames of commerce, as any normal patriot would. Through their policies and regulation, the Democrats are failing to nudge the workplace into productivity, which is the purpose of business in the first place. Businesses exist to produce and to turn a profit. Democrats push their policies and agenda upon business, at the expense of those who have risked their capital to make money; to be successful. The list of Democrat foibles is endless. 

My Granddad Sam would be disgusted of what has become of his party. The Democrats have become a party of nosy, intrusive, bureaucrats, and politicians. Their goals are aimed to cause people to fail, and to cause them to become trapped within the system of handouts and government assistance. This helps in the Democrat's goal to keep people dependent on the government. Sprinkle into the Democrat's goal, a smidgen of fear, tossed in by the DNC talking heads, the same pundits who create the fear in the minds the entitlement-minded, which is a fear that says; "To abandon support for the Democrats will create chaos in the order of things." This strategy by the Democrats is designed to retain power, to stay in elected office, and to gain more control over their sheep. Fear produces more votes and support  for the Democrats from the weak-minded.

The Democrats will do anything necessary to retain and grow their power. At the same time, the Democrats do little, if anything to advance this country. There is no vision from them, like the vision that John F. Kennedy had for the United States. John F. Kennedy was the last Democrat of any substance, or greatness to come along. There have been no others like Kennedy, in my lifetime. All Kennedy's Democrat successors have aspired to be mediocre at best, while dong all they can to knock America down, trying , at the same time, to boost the voter rolls of the Democrat party. This, at the expense of this country’s greatness.

If we go back and look at history from the end of Kennedy’s short term, through the terms of Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, this country has moved far away from its former greatness. My Granddad would be disgusted at what the Democrats have done to this country.

I believe that my Granddad Sam would have bolted the Democrat party, had he been alive today. But then , so would have anyone else who had any common sense, or any sense of decency at all. The Democrat party is not what it used to be, and never will it be again, as long as the Democrat party continues to pander to the mediocre in society. This in turn places our great nation on a path of mediocrity, just the way the Democrats like it.


Originally Published in 2003. Copyright 07/27/2010


My Grandfather was a Democrat in the Arizona state legislature, in the mid 20th century. He was a sharp attorney, and he had quite a bit of respect from his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Had he been alive today, Sam most likely would have bolted the from the Democrat party. He probably would have become a Republican. That is what Dad has told me. His name was Sam. Sam was a family man, and I have some fond memories of him, from when I was just a toddler. Sam died in 1968 when I was just five years old.

Much of what I know of Sam is from what my Dad has told me, and through the few items, I have read in press clippings. The rest comes from my distant and foggy memories.  Looking back at Sam, and comparing his morality and principles to today’s Liberal (Progressive) Democrats, I often wonder where today’s Democrats have gone wrong.

Sam cared about the little guy, an attitude that was born from Sam's own life experiences. Sam came out of the depression era, having left Oklahoma to move out west in order to seek a better life. Sam settled in Arizona. He knew through personal experience, and with perseverance, that hard work could make a man successful. This is such a novel idea for a Democrat. But then, Sam was not one of today’s Democrats.

Today’s Democrats do not subscribe to the same morals and principles that Sam lived by. Today’s Democrat seems to think that hard work, and perseverance, traits that could give a man an edge in today’s world, are wrong.  Such traits, Democrats believe, could give a person an unfair advantage over someone who just aspires to go through life, just being mediocre, just to get by.

Back when Sam died, America was determined to be its best. The country was poised to land a man on the Moon. Another Democrat had envisioned this spectacular feat. That Democrat spoke of a great vision he had for America. A decade earlier, the great Democrat gave an historical and memorable speech, in which he said: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." President Kennedy said those words on, May 25, 1961. President John F. Kennedy gave that speech, not to appease the Soviet Union in the cold war, as some of his successors would do for our enemies, through their actions of appeasement.

President Kennedy had a goal. He was seeking great prestige for the United States during the cold war, not only to signal America’s willingness to keep up with the Soviet Union, but to beat the Soviets at what would become our own game.

Kennedy was one of those old-time Democrats, who had convictions and principles. He believed in,  'America First' before all others. Kennedy believed in American ingenuity, and he believed in being competitive.  Kennedy believed in the greatness of the American spirit, and of the American people. Such  was a far cry from what Democrats believe today. My Granddad also believed in these things.

Today, the word “Democrat” is a word that is indistinguishable from a handful of other terms that can be freely substituted in place of the word, Democrat. Terms such as  Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, and Communist. Today's Democrats are collectivists. They are the champions of the immoral, the perverse and of those who, while they call themselves progressives, can just as easily label them with terms such as deviants, malcontents and outcasts. In being collectivists, the Democrats have excelled at the game of divisiveness in order to promote its own agenda. Democrats have managed to take all of the different sub groups of illicit humanity, and they have managed to convince all those different groups that Democrats are their voice, and they are their protectors from up on high, in Washington. The Democrats have formed a collective of many different groups of outcasts that the Democrats have divided from mainstream society. They are those who the Democrats have brainwashed into believing that they are the 'disenfranchised.' These groups now make up what is now the Democrat support base. The Democrat voter rolls are rife with those who believe that the Democrats are the voice of all, and those who oppose the Democrat voice, are hateful, mean-spirited, or are bigots.

The problem is that the Democrat party no longer represents the underdog. The Democrats represent the moral decay of America. The Democrats will do any and all things that they can to gain a larger voter base in an effort to hold onto the reins of power. They do this by attacking the very same virtues that offer cohesiveness and stability to a society, which is the very foundation of productivity, and of the success of a society. The Democrats support freedom of choice. However, only when that choice advances the cause of their own agenda. The Democrats support the destruction of the traditional family, by homogenizing the true family in with the alternative family, which the Democrats define as also being 'normal'. In reality, the Democrats are destroying the traditional family, to be replaced by a kind of abnormal, hybrid, pseudo-family.
 
The Democrats champion mediocrity in their attempt to level the playing field for all. The student with a 4.0 GPA is penalized, so that the student with just an average 2.8 GPA has an 'equal' opportunity to go to  university. Forget the student who excels, because of hard work and brilliance. The slow and truant student now defines what success is. That success is measured not by how much a student has learned when he leaves high school. That success is measured by simply having a piece of paper many graduating students cannot read; a diploma. Democrats see success in what percentage of high schoolers graduate. Not whether they can read, or write.

Democrats demand this kind of success, so that the self-esteem of the lowest common denominator of a student is boosted, while the future, and the self-esteem of a truly brilliant and fine mind, from the same graduating class, is wasted and compromised to avoid any competition. Competition, according to Democrats, destroys self-esteem. The lack of competition we see in our schools will find its way into society, which will ultimately destroy a nation’s greatness. This will destroy our nation's ability to compete against the world, which in turn can alter our nation’s destiny into destiny of ruin. To a Democrat, this is his just cause, and is for the good of the American collective.

It seems that the Democrats are endeavoring to strip the gears within the drive-train of our nation's economy, through excessive spending, increased taxation, and heavy burdens upon the small business. We see increased red tape, high taxation. over regulation, and silly little laws and legislation designed to transform the workplace into a social utopia for the 'enjoyment' of the worker The Democrats do not fan the flames of commerce, as any normal patriot would. Through their policies and regulation, the Democrats are failing to nudge the workplace into productivity, which is the purpose of business in the first place. Businesses exist to produce and to turn a profit. Democrats push their policies and agenda upon business, at the expense of those who have risked their capital to make money; to be successful. The list of Democrat foibles is endless. 

My Granddad Sam would be disgusted of what has become of his party. The Democrats have become a party of nosy, intrusive, bureaucrats, and politicians. Their goals are aimed to cause people to fail, and to cause them to become trapped within the system of handouts and government assistance. This helps in the Democrat's goal to keep people dependent on the government. Sprinkle into the Democrat's goal, a smidgen of fear, tossed in by the DNC talking heads, the same pundits who create the fear in the minds the entitlement-minded, which is a fear that says; "To abandon support for the Democrats will create chaos in the order of things." This strategy by the Democrats is designed to retain power, to stay in elected office, and to gain more control over their sheep. Fear produces more votes and support  for the Democrats from the weak-minded.

The Democrats will do anything necessary to retain and grow their power. At the same time, the Democrats do little, if anything to advance this country. There is no vision from them, like the vision that John F. Kennedy had for the United States. John F. Kennedy was the last Democrat of any substance, or greatness to come along. There have been no others like Kennedy, in my lifetime. All Kennedy's Democrat successors have aspired to be mediocre at best, while dong all they can to knock America down, trying , at the same time, to boost the voter rolls of the Democrat party. This, at the expense of this country’s greatness.

If we go back and look at history from the end of Kennedy’s short term, through the terms of Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, this country has moved far away from its former greatness. My Granddad would be disgusted at what the Democrats have done to this country.

I believe that my Granddad Sam would have bolted the Democrat party, had he been alive today. But then , so would have anyone else who had any common sense, or any sense of decency at all. The Democrat party is not what it used to be, and never will it be again, as long as the Democrat party continues to pander to the mediocre in society. This in turn places our great nation on a path of mediocrity, just the way the Democrats like it.


Originally Published in 2003. Copyright 07/27/2010

An Armed Society is a Polite Society


Did you know that almost 30 years ago (1982) a small town in Georgia, just north of Atlanta, passed a law requiring each head of a household to own and maintain a gun? At the time this little town was home to some five thousand residents.

The small town of Kennesaw was blasted by the gun control crowd with dire predictions such as 'Wild West' type showdowns, increased violence and shooting accidents and called the pistol-packing capital of the world, by the Washington Post. Even the wacko liberal Phil Donahue requested that the Mayor of Kennesaw appear on his show. At the time this small town was experiencing a skyrocketing crime rate well above the national average.

So what’s happened in the past 28 years? The crime rate has dropped dramatically, by well over half, and get this, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - not as a victim, attacker or defender. Yes, in the entire 28 years since the law went into effect!

When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. - Kennesaw Police Lt. Craig Graydon

But that’s not all. The little town of Kennesaw has seen an increase in population. From some 5,000 in 1982 to over 31,000 today. Hum, seems like the liberals are wrong on this issue too.

In his two books, More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias against Guns, Author John Lott makes the case for carrying canceled weapons using actual statistics, sound analytics and empirical evidence. If you want to know the truth, check out these books.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime but, as the [Virginia Tech] attack showed again, they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. Annual surveys of crime victims in America by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics continually show that, when confronted by a criminal, people are safest if they have a gun. Just as the threat of arrest and prison can deter criminals from committing a crime, so does the fact that victims can defend themselves. - John Lott, Author and Economist as well as senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Research, as well as common sense (one of the many virtues absent in most liberals) show that an armed society is indeed a polite as well as safer society.

Did you know that almost 30 years ago (1982) a small town in Georgia, just north of Atlanta, passed a law requiring each head of a household to own and maintain a gun? At the time this little town was home to some five thousand residents.

The small town of Kennesaw was blasted by the gun control crowd with dire predictions such as 'Wild West' type showdowns, increased violence and shooting accidents and called the pistol-packing capital of the world, by the Washington Post. Even the wacko liberal Phil Donahue requested that the Mayor of Kennesaw appear on his show. At the time this small town was experiencing a skyrocketing crime rate well above the national average.

So what’s happened in the past 28 years? The crime rate has dropped dramatically, by well over half, and get this, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - not as a victim, attacker or defender. Yes, in the entire 28 years since the law went into effect!

When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. - Kennesaw Police Lt. Craig Graydon

But that’s not all. The little town of Kennesaw has seen an increase in population. From some 5,000 in 1982 to over 31,000 today. Hum, seems like the liberals are wrong on this issue too.

In his two books, More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias against Guns, Author John Lott makes the case for carrying canceled weapons using actual statistics, sound analytics and empirical evidence. If you want to know the truth, check out these books.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime but, as the [Virginia Tech] attack showed again, they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. Annual surveys of crime victims in America by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics continually show that, when confronted by a criminal, people are safest if they have a gun. Just as the threat of arrest and prison can deter criminals from committing a crime, so does the fact that victims can defend themselves. - John Lott, Author and Economist as well as senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Research, as well as common sense (one of the many virtues absent in most liberals) show that an armed society is indeed a polite as well as safer society.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Liberals Love Freedom of Speech - for Themselves


The misnamed DISCLOSE Act is being fast tracked by the liberals in the Senate to silence those with an opposing view just before the 2010 mid-term elections. Make no mistake, if passed this legislation will suppress political speech!

The House version, H.R. 1575 has been passed and now Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has introduced his own bill (S. 3628) that is only slightly different than the House version.

The DISCLOSE Act has been written with special exceptions for favorite dem special interest groups and of course, unions.

The DISCLOSE Act is an unequivocal ban on free speech, masquerading as an exercise in accountability. The bill’s sponsors claim that these regulations are necessary after the Citizens United ruling, arguing that it allows corporations to prop up "shadow groups" through which money could be funneled to air independent advertisements.

The DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 1575; S. 3628), which is a misleading acronym for "Democracy Is Strengthened By Casting Light On Spending In Elections," will do the exact opposite of its intended purpose.

DISCLOSE is not designed to “cast light” on the election; it is designed to silence organizations by forcing them to expose their key donors prior to an election.

A more accurate acronym for DISCLOSE is this: “Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections.”

The legislation requires that an organization reveal the names of its top donors even if the donors had no direct involvement in the preparation of election materials, radio or TV ads. It requires that the names of the CEO, and top five funders be on each ad – more than once.

It also creates onerous reporting requirements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which will discourage many smaller groups from being involved in the election process.

If liberals can make the process ugly enough and the punishments severe enough, many groups will decide it’s not worth the hassle and risk.

The DISCLOSE Act is undoubtedly unconstitutional, but that doesn’t matter to liberals. If they can get it passed before the mid-term election, it will impact one of the most significant elections of our time. It only needs to be in force for one election cycle to give liberals the victory they want. If it’s struck down after the election, it doesn’t matter to them. They’ll have won.

The DISCLOSE Act is a direct response to the victory for free speech that Americans won in the Citizens United case that was decided by the Supreme Court. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional portions of the McCain-Feingold Act.

The Citizens United victory gave Americans back a portion of the free speech rights that had been taken away. The DISCLOSE Act is designed to subvert those free speech rights to benefit liberals running in 2010.

The DISCLOSE Act must not be passed!

The misnamed DISCLOSE Act is being fast tracked by the liberals in the Senate to silence those with an opposing view just before the 2010 mid-term elections. Make no mistake, if passed this legislation will suppress political speech!

The House version, H.R. 1575 has been passed and now Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has introduced his own bill (S. 3628) that is only slightly different than the House version.

The DISCLOSE Act has been written with special exceptions for favorite dem special interest groups and of course, unions.

The DISCLOSE Act is an unequivocal ban on free speech, masquerading as an exercise in accountability. The bill’s sponsors claim that these regulations are necessary after the Citizens United ruling, arguing that it allows corporations to prop up "shadow groups" through which money could be funneled to air independent advertisements.

The DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 1575; S. 3628), which is a misleading acronym for "Democracy Is Strengthened By Casting Light On Spending In Elections," will do the exact opposite of its intended purpose.

DISCLOSE is not designed to “cast light” on the election; it is designed to silence organizations by forcing them to expose their key donors prior to an election.

A more accurate acronym for DISCLOSE is this: “Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections.”

The legislation requires that an organization reveal the names of its top donors even if the donors had no direct involvement in the preparation of election materials, radio or TV ads. It requires that the names of the CEO, and top five funders be on each ad – more than once.

It also creates onerous reporting requirements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which will discourage many smaller groups from being involved in the election process.

If liberals can make the process ugly enough and the punishments severe enough, many groups will decide it’s not worth the hassle and risk.

The DISCLOSE Act is undoubtedly unconstitutional, but that doesn’t matter to liberals. If they can get it passed before the mid-term election, it will impact one of the most significant elections of our time. It only needs to be in force for one election cycle to give liberals the victory they want. If it’s struck down after the election, it doesn’t matter to them. They’ll have won.

The DISCLOSE Act is a direct response to the victory for free speech that Americans won in the Citizens United case that was decided by the Supreme Court. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional portions of the McCain-Feingold Act.

The Citizens United victory gave Americans back a portion of the free speech rights that had been taken away. The DISCLOSE Act is designed to subvert those free speech rights to benefit liberals running in 2010.

The DISCLOSE Act must not be passed!

Congress and Gomorrah « Draw For Truth

Check this out from Draw for Truth. All that's missing is the angels grabbing Senator Jim DeMint (SC) and Representatives Michele Bachman (MN) and Scott Garrett (NJ) and maybe Ron Paul (TX) by the wrist, bundling them over to Union Station, and saying, "Now quit sashaying around and GET OUT! NOW!" (Genesis 19:16-17)
Check this out from Draw for Truth. All that's missing is the angels grabbing Senator Jim DeMint (SC) and Representatives Michele Bachman (MN) and Scott Garrett (NJ) and maybe Ron Paul (TX) by the wrist, bundling them over to Union Station, and saying, "Now quit sashaying around and GET OUT! NOW!" (Genesis 19:16-17)

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Gay Rights Over Religious Rights - The Obama Administration in Action


By bypassing a UN subsidiary committee and the committee’s desire to table recommendations of accrediting the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) this past Thursday, the Obama administration successfully rammed through the accreditation of the organization to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations.

The Obama administration has been IGLHRC’s main supporter in their quest of being added to the UN’s list of NGO’s, even though many member states within the committee have not received the required answers from the organization with the Egyptian representative being the most vocal of IGLHRC’s evasiveness and called for a procedural “no action” motion.

In response US ambassador, Rosemary DiCarlo, pushed for the accreditation arguing that the group be given status as it “fulfills all the criteria for ECOSOC and has answered all the questions posed.” Apparently Ms. DiCarlo doesn’t seem to understand the definition of the word “all” or is outright lying.

The main opposition to the IGLHRC is their endorsement of the “Yogyakarta Principles” document that calls for “sexual orientation and gender identity” to become a new category of nondiscrimination in the UN human rights treaties. The Yogyakarta Principles call for criminal penalties against those who criticize homosexuality or those who are confused by their natural gender.

The Egyptian representative expressed that all his government’s questions have not been answered and accused the IGLHRC with being evasive on questions of religious freedom and freedom of expression which are fundamental tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter.

Member states are expressing concern over clergy being charged with “hate speech.” When asked in June if the IGLHRC supported such charges against a religion that teaches that sexual relations outside of the bond of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong, the organization has refused to provide an answer.

Due to the insistence of Ms. DiCarlo and the bombardment of UN member states by lobbying campaigns of homosexual rights groups the resolution passed with 23 for, 13 against, 13 abstentions and 5 absences.

Christian pastors have been arrested and harassed in Europe and Canada recently and it looks as if this trend will continue on an international level with the IGLHRC having a hand in policy making within the UN.

May of this year in Wokington, Cumbria-UK Baptist pastor Dale McAlpine was arrested, by a homosexual police officer no less, for saying “homosexuality is a sin.”

June 2008 Red Deer, Alberta-Canada pastor Boissoin was ordered to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum and commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 for writing a series of letters to a newspaper and criticizing the use of tax dollars to fund homosexual activism in 2002.

June 2007 Wichita, Kansas pastor Mark Holick was arrested near the entrance of Heritage Park where a Gay Pride event was about to take place. Within 5 minutes of arriving Pastor Holick was threatened with arrest if he did not leave and then immediately arrested when he refused to leave.

2003 in Kalmar, Sweden Pentecostal pastor Ake Green was arrested at his church for preaching on the subject of homosexual behavior and charged with hate speech and sentenced to a month in jail.

If the IGLHRC and the Obama administration have their way the free speech of those residing within the United States will be subject to termination and any who uphold a belief in morality will be silenced.

By bypassing a UN subsidiary committee and the committee’s desire to table recommendations of accrediting the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) this past Thursday, the Obama administration successfully rammed through the accreditation of the organization to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations.

The Obama administration has been IGLHRC’s main supporter in their quest of being added to the UN’s list of NGO’s, even though many member states within the committee have not received the required answers from the organization with the Egyptian representative being the most vocal of IGLHRC’s evasiveness and called for a procedural “no action” motion.

In response US ambassador, Rosemary DiCarlo, pushed for the accreditation arguing that the group be given status as it “fulfills all the criteria for ECOSOC and has answered all the questions posed.” Apparently Ms. DiCarlo doesn’t seem to understand the definition of the word “all” or is outright lying.

The main opposition to the IGLHRC is their endorsement of the “Yogyakarta Principles” document that calls for “sexual orientation and gender identity” to become a new category of nondiscrimination in the UN human rights treaties. The Yogyakarta Principles call for criminal penalties against those who criticize homosexuality or those who are confused by their natural gender.

The Egyptian representative expressed that all his government’s questions have not been answered and accused the IGLHRC with being evasive on questions of religious freedom and freedom of expression which are fundamental tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter.

Member states are expressing concern over clergy being charged with “hate speech.” When asked in June if the IGLHRC supported such charges against a religion that teaches that sexual relations outside of the bond of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong, the organization has refused to provide an answer.

Due to the insistence of Ms. DiCarlo and the bombardment of UN member states by lobbying campaigns of homosexual rights groups the resolution passed with 23 for, 13 against, 13 abstentions and 5 absences.

Christian pastors have been arrested and harassed in Europe and Canada recently and it looks as if this trend will continue on an international level with the IGLHRC having a hand in policy making within the UN.

May of this year in Wokington, Cumbria-UK Baptist pastor Dale McAlpine was arrested, by a homosexual police officer no less, for saying “homosexuality is a sin.”

June 2008 Red Deer, Alberta-Canada pastor Boissoin was ordered to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum and commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 for writing a series of letters to a newspaper and criticizing the use of tax dollars to fund homosexual activism in 2002.

June 2007 Wichita, Kansas pastor Mark Holick was arrested near the entrance of Heritage Park where a Gay Pride event was about to take place. Within 5 minutes of arriving Pastor Holick was threatened with arrest if he did not leave and then immediately arrested when he refused to leave.

2003 in Kalmar, Sweden Pentecostal pastor Ake Green was arrested at his church for preaching on the subject of homosexual behavior and charged with hate speech and sentenced to a month in jail.

If the IGLHRC and the Obama administration have their way the free speech of those residing within the United States will be subject to termination and any who uphold a belief in morality will be silenced.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Illegal Immigration


"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." - President Theodore Roosevelt

Americans must wonder what happened to this common sense approach advocated by President Roosevelt. Is it that it makes too much sense? Or is it just to simple? While it is true that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants we are also a nation of laws. No matter what side of this issue you fall, it is a most difficult one. I’ve been taught to love my neighbor and Mexico is our neighbor, but I'm also a realist and know that the current predicament we find ourselves in must be addressed, and soon.

No one can honestly deny the contributions made by immigrants to the U.S. We can look recently at Intel, founded by Hungarian Andy Grove. Google, founded by Russian Sergey Brin. Yahoo, founded by Jerry Yang of Taiwan. Microsystems, founded by Andreas Bechtolsheim of Germany, and the list goes on and on. But let’s not be confused by the term ‘immigrant’ with that of 'illegal immigrant,' they are very different.

Many in this country tell us that the illegal’s are willing to do the jobs that most Americans won’t do. While that may be true to some extent the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids the last few years such as the one at a Swift & Co. plant in Greeley, Colorado where 260 illegal aliens were arrested, hundreds of American citizens lined up seeking those jobs, (paying on average $9 an hour) prove different. Twenty years ago the average wage within the meat packing industry was closer to $20 an hour. It’s the same with the construction field. Once it was an industry paying a living wage today many of the available jobs pay less than $10 an hour.

There are those who tell us that illegal’s are paying more in tax dollars then they are taking out of the system. Hardly. The cost of health care alone is rising faster then any other industry. Hospitals are closing, emergency rooms are shutting down and health insurance rates are double and even tripping due to the direct effect of increased costs from services given to illegal aliens.

While researching for this article I came upon the following: "In a recent year in Colorado, the state's emergency Medicaid program paid an estimated $30 million in hospital and physician delivery costs for about 6,000 illegal immigrant mothers - average of $5,000 per baby. Those 6,000 births to illegal aliens represent 40% of the births paid for by Medicaid in Colorado. Those 6,000 babies immediately became U.S. citizens and qualified for full Medicaid services, with a cost yet to be tabulated."

From California to Florida the reports continue to show the same dilemma and there are far too many to list here. The numbers add up to over $20 billion a year in unpaid health care. Granted this isn’t all from illegal immigrates, but let’s be conservative and say only 25% of it is, which means over $5 billion a year!

Then there’s the problem with education. Our children are packed in over-crowded class rooms because of illegal immigration in many parts of the country, like where I live in Southern California. It is unfair to our own children.

There’s also the crime issue. This has been coming to light in the recent years due to the increase in illegal immigration. A study completed by researcher Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta estimate there are over 200,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the U.S. and that some 100 cross the border every day. This alone should make every American citizen want the borders closed and it's impossible to tabulate the cost in police services, courts and the many broken people/families that are the direct result of this invasion.

What about the drug trade which puts billions of dollars into the hands of organized crime? We close the border and the problem will be drastically reduced. And let’s not forget the diseases which are brought into the country by illegals. Infections of Tuberculosis, which was close to eradication in the U.S., are on the rise. The West Nile Virus, unknown in the U.S. prior to 1999, has been found in 43 states according to the CDC. Chagas disease, common in Latin America where some 16 million are infected, has made its way to the U.S. Even the pro-immigration NY Times stated back in 2002, "The wide swath that West Nile has cut in just three years illustrates how vulnerable the United States is to imported diseases."

Then there’s the really BIG issue, terrorism. Our Intel services have known for some time that terrorists are trying to infiltrate our southern borders with WMD’s. If we leave things the way they are it will only be a matter of time before they’re successful. If this were to happen the rest of our concerns would become irrelevant.

The Obama administration is working hard toward an amnesty program and even have a website stating their targeted goals. But if you remember we tried amnesty in 1986 under the Reagan administration. At the time congress failed to secure our borders and succeeding administrations have failed to enforce our immigration laws and we’ve ended up where we are today, with over 20 million illegal immigrants. If we do it again we’re asking for another giant wave of immigrants.

Now the answers are not to deny medical care to anyone. This would be completely unacceptable, and I know that the majority of people who are entering our country illegally are only trying to better their situation, but the answer to this epidemic is keeping illegal aliens out in the first place and deporting those who have already entered illegally. It’s also imperative to have a ‘guest worker’ program, but not one that rewards those who have broken our laws.

I know this seems harsh and would, if enacted, break-up families, but understand that most illegal actions do the same. If we continue to reward illegal immigrants our health care industry and educational system will eventually collapse.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." - President Theodore Roosevelt

Americans must wonder what happened to this common sense approach advocated by President Roosevelt. Is it that it makes too much sense? Or is it just to simple? While it is true that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants we are also a nation of laws. No matter what side of this issue you fall, it is a most difficult one. I’ve been taught to love my neighbor and Mexico is our neighbor, but I'm also a realist and know that the current predicament we find ourselves in must be addressed, and soon.

No one can honestly deny the contributions made by immigrants to the U.S. We can look recently at Intel, founded by Hungarian Andy Grove. Google, founded by Russian Sergey Brin. Yahoo, founded by Jerry Yang of Taiwan. Microsystems, founded by Andreas Bechtolsheim of Germany, and the list goes on and on. But let’s not be confused by the term ‘immigrant’ with that of 'illegal immigrant,' they are very different.

Many in this country tell us that the illegal’s are willing to do the jobs that most Americans won’t do. While that may be true to some extent the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids the last few years such as the one at a Swift & Co. plant in Greeley, Colorado where 260 illegal aliens were arrested, hundreds of American citizens lined up seeking those jobs, (paying on average $9 an hour) prove different. Twenty years ago the average wage within the meat packing industry was closer to $20 an hour. It’s the same with the construction field. Once it was an industry paying a living wage today many of the available jobs pay less than $10 an hour.

There are those who tell us that illegal’s are paying more in tax dollars then they are taking out of the system. Hardly. The cost of health care alone is rising faster then any other industry. Hospitals are closing, emergency rooms are shutting down and health insurance rates are double and even tripping due to the direct effect of increased costs from services given to illegal aliens.

While researching for this article I came upon the following: "In a recent year in Colorado, the state's emergency Medicaid program paid an estimated $30 million in hospital and physician delivery costs for about 6,000 illegal immigrant mothers - average of $5,000 per baby. Those 6,000 births to illegal aliens represent 40% of the births paid for by Medicaid in Colorado. Those 6,000 babies immediately became U.S. citizens and qualified for full Medicaid services, with a cost yet to be tabulated."

From California to Florida the reports continue to show the same dilemma and there are far too many to list here. The numbers add up to over $20 billion a year in unpaid health care. Granted this isn’t all from illegal immigrates, but let’s be conservative and say only 25% of it is, which means over $5 billion a year!

Then there’s the problem with education. Our children are packed in over-crowded class rooms because of illegal immigration in many parts of the country, like where I live in Southern California. It is unfair to our own children.

There’s also the crime issue. This has been coming to light in the recent years due to the increase in illegal immigration. A study completed by researcher Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta estimate there are over 200,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the U.S. and that some 100 cross the border every day. This alone should make every American citizen want the borders closed and it's impossible to tabulate the cost in police services, courts and the many broken people/families that are the direct result of this invasion.

What about the drug trade which puts billions of dollars into the hands of organized crime? We close the border and the problem will be drastically reduced. And let’s not forget the diseases which are brought into the country by illegals. Infections of Tuberculosis, which was close to eradication in the U.S., are on the rise. The West Nile Virus, unknown in the U.S. prior to 1999, has been found in 43 states according to the CDC. Chagas disease, common in Latin America where some 16 million are infected, has made its way to the U.S. Even the pro-immigration NY Times stated back in 2002, "The wide swath that West Nile has cut in just three years illustrates how vulnerable the United States is to imported diseases."

Then there’s the really BIG issue, terrorism. Our Intel services have known for some time that terrorists are trying to infiltrate our southern borders with WMD’s. If we leave things the way they are it will only be a matter of time before they’re successful. If this were to happen the rest of our concerns would become irrelevant.

The Obama administration is working hard toward an amnesty program and even have a website stating their targeted goals. But if you remember we tried amnesty in 1986 under the Reagan administration. At the time congress failed to secure our borders and succeeding administrations have failed to enforce our immigration laws and we’ve ended up where we are today, with over 20 million illegal immigrants. If we do it again we’re asking for another giant wave of immigrants.

Now the answers are not to deny medical care to anyone. This would be completely unacceptable, and I know that the majority of people who are entering our country illegally are only trying to better their situation, but the answer to this epidemic is keeping illegal aliens out in the first place and deporting those who have already entered illegally. It’s also imperative to have a ‘guest worker’ program, but not one that rewards those who have broken our laws.

I know this seems harsh and would, if enacted, break-up families, but understand that most illegal actions do the same. If we continue to reward illegal immigrants our health care industry and educational system will eventually collapse.

Separated at Birth?

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee Shows Off Geography Skills She 'Learned' In Public School



North and south, side-by-side? Sheila Jackson Lee obviously rides the short bus to Capitol Hill every morning. Remember this precious nugget from Sheila Jackson Lee? In 1997, during a subcommittee briefing, Jackson Lee asked a NASA scientist; "If the Mars Pathfinder had photographed the flag that Neil Armstrong had left behind." Hey Sheila, The flag was planted on the moon!! Is this the best the progressives in Texas can do in politicians? With the likes of Barack 'The One' Obama, Joe 'Hair Plugs' Biden, SanFranNan Pelosi, 'Dingy' Harry Reid, The Brilliant Sheila Jackson Lee, and Bawney Fwank in power, we could very well be doomed as a nation.

Are You Asking to See My Papers?

What is all the fuss about SB-1070 anyway? There seems to be many people upset about the new Arizona law. This law does not usurp the federal law. If SB-1070 created new laws, there might be reason to question its constitutionality.

If Arizona's law is unconstitutional, existing federal laws must be unconstitutional as well since SB-1070 emulates them. It merely allows the laws to be enforced at the state level.

This law is about protecting the people. The porous border poses a real security risk. Many people say the law is racist and we are only going to go after 'brown skin' people. Currently in Pinal County's jail, there are 200 illegals from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, and the Sudan. “They’re coming from all over,” Arizona Senator Jon Kyl said. “And one wonders whether some of them are coming in here to commit acts of terror.”

Kyl has been tracking the problem since 2002, not long after the September 11 attacks. Since that time, according to an investigation by the House Committee on Homeland Security, intelligence officials have determined members of the terror group Hezbollah have already infiltrated the U.S. by crossing at the southern border. Border security is US security.
Why should the United States be different than other countries when it comes to the borders? Go to any other country - ANY other country without proof or reason why you are there, you will be sent back, thrown in lockup or be killed, no due process, nothing.

Some people are complaining the law is right out of the Nazi playbook. Show me your papers!
I am a legal United States citizen and I must show my ID when:

1. I am pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. Showing up for a doctor's appointment.
4. Filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. Applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport.
6. Applying for any kind of insurance.
7. Filling out college applications.
8. Donating blood.
9. Obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. Collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.

I'm sure there are more instances, but the point is that we citizens of the USA are required to prove who we are nearly every day. Why should people in this country illegally, be exempt?

Latest polls show that 70% of Arizona residents support this legislation. I hope the other states considering similar legislation move quickly. The federal government is impotent and useless when it comes to enforcing border security. Arizona is shining a spotlight on the Obama administration's lack of resolve regarding our borders and illegal immigration.

People coming here illegally are looking for a better life...I understand that. I am all for that - if they do it legally.
What is all the fuss about SB-1070 anyway? There seems to be many people upset about the new Arizona law. This law does not usurp the federal law. If SB-1070 created new laws, there might be reason to question its constitutionality.

If Arizona's law is unconstitutional, existing federal laws must be unconstitutional as well since SB-1070 emulates them. It merely allows the laws to be enforced at the state level.

This law is about protecting the people. The porous border poses a real security risk. Many people say the law is racist and we are only going to go after 'brown skin' people. Currently in Pinal County's jail, there are 200 illegals from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, and the Sudan. “They’re coming from all over,” Arizona Senator Jon Kyl said. “And one wonders whether some of them are coming in here to commit acts of terror.”

Kyl has been tracking the problem since 2002, not long after the September 11 attacks. Since that time, according to an investigation by the House Committee on Homeland Security, intelligence officials have determined members of the terror group Hezbollah have already infiltrated the U.S. by crossing at the southern border. Border security is US security.
Why should the United States be different than other countries when it comes to the borders? Go to any other country - ANY other country without proof or reason why you are there, you will be sent back, thrown in lockup or be killed, no due process, nothing.

Some people are complaining the law is right out of the Nazi playbook. Show me your papers!
I am a legal United States citizen and I must show my ID when:

1. I am pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. Showing up for a doctor's appointment.
4. Filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. Applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport.
6. Applying for any kind of insurance.
7. Filling out college applications.
8. Donating blood.
9. Obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. Collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.

I'm sure there are more instances, but the point is that we citizens of the USA are required to prove who we are nearly every day. Why should people in this country illegally, be exempt?

Latest polls show that 70% of Arizona residents support this legislation. I hope the other states considering similar legislation move quickly. The federal government is impotent and useless when it comes to enforcing border security. Arizona is shining a spotlight on the Obama administration's lack of resolve regarding our borders and illegal immigration.

People coming here illegally are looking for a better life...I understand that. I am all for that - if they do it legally.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Frank and Dodd’s Latest Liberal Social Experiment


Have you read the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill that recently passed both the House and the Senate? Well it's not good for America - but with Barney Frank's name attached to it, you don't need to read it to know that!

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has Barney Frank's DNA all over it. It sounds smart, but it doesn't make much sense, it spends more than it saves, and of course - it's afraid to talk about Fannie and Freddie.

But I'm not surprised at all. Are you? Barney Frank has a mile-long track record of throwing away taxpayer money to pay for social programs and worse - self-beneficial pork projects.

This bill is a disgrace. It doesn't touch Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, the two entities at the heart of the financial collapse that are expected to cost taxpayers upwards of $400 billion. And to make matters worse, its excessive regulations fatten the government. Despite its name, this bill does not protect consumers, but it does force race and gender quotas on financial firms that will create a new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy.

Leave it to Barney Frank to use a financial bill as a vehicle for his ultra-liberal social agenda. You and I both know that he'll just keep on wasting our tax dollars on his far-left social experiments.

Barney Frank's financial overhaul bill is a disgrace that does not solve America's financial problems but puts us at risk for future economic crises. I've had enough of Barney Frank's social experiments at taxpayers' expense.

Have you read the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill that recently passed both the House and the Senate? Well it's not good for America - but with Barney Frank's name attached to it, you don't need to read it to know that!

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has Barney Frank's DNA all over it. It sounds smart, but it doesn't make much sense, it spends more than it saves, and of course - it's afraid to talk about Fannie and Freddie.

But I'm not surprised at all. Are you? Barney Frank has a mile-long track record of throwing away taxpayer money to pay for social programs and worse - self-beneficial pork projects.

This bill is a disgrace. It doesn't touch Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, the two entities at the heart of the financial collapse that are expected to cost taxpayers upwards of $400 billion. And to make matters worse, its excessive regulations fatten the government. Despite its name, this bill does not protect consumers, but it does force race and gender quotas on financial firms that will create a new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy.

Leave it to Barney Frank to use a financial bill as a vehicle for his ultra-liberal social agenda. You and I both know that he'll just keep on wasting our tax dollars on his far-left social experiments.

Barney Frank's financial overhaul bill is a disgrace that does not solve America's financial problems but puts us at risk for future economic crises. I've had enough of Barney Frank's social experiments at taxpayers' expense.

Hysterical Pseudo-Environmentalists Cause Dengue Fever Resurgence in U.S.



Once widespread in the Western hemisphere (including the Southern U.S.), dengue fever was largely eradicated in the 1960s after the carrier mosquitoes were targeted with the pesticide DDT. The disease slowly rebounded after DDT was banned, and while it generally stays confined to the tropics now, a handful of small, scattered outbreaks have occurred in the U.S. along the Mexican border over the past 30 years, according to the CDC.

Known as "breakbone fever" because of the shattering pain it causes, dengue fever is transmitted by a mosquito found in warm climates, and is not contagious. People often contract dengue fever without realizing they have it, but in some cases it can lead to dengue hemorrhagic fever, a severe form of the illness which causes internal bleeding and can lead to shock and even death.

The CDC and health officials in Florida have confirmed at least 28 cases of the fever in Key West. More than 1,000 other residents -- roughly 5 percent of the local population -- may have been exposed without getting ill, according to a CDC report released last week.

Health officials are worried that the fever may spread northward. "We're concerned that if dengue gains a foothold in Key West, it will travel to other southern cities where the mosquito that transmits dengue is present, like Miami," the chief of the dengue branch at the CDC, Harold Margolis, said in a statement. 

Fun Facts: Mosquitoes, Disease & DDT

At least 80 percent of human infectious diseases are arthropod-borne—transmitted by insects, mites, or ticks. They have caused the death of hundreds of millions of people by infecting them with the pathogens that cause typhus, bubonic plague, yellow fever, malaria, dengue fever, sleeping sickness, encephalitis, elephantiasis, leishmaniasis, and yaws.

More than 3,000 species of mosquitoes have been described in scientific journals. Most of them are in tropical areas, where as many as 150 species have been found in a single square mile. The United States contains about 170 species, Canada 70, and Arctic lands less than two dozen. In the Canadian Arctic, researchers who bared their arms, legs, and torsos in an experiment reported as many as 9,000 bites per minute. Unprotected human beings there could lose half of their blood in two hours, and die. Hundreds of cattle and horses have been killed by just such exsanguination, in our southeastern states.

In addition to its effectiveness, DDT is inexpensive. The cost of spraying in 1959 was $205,000, but if substitutes had to be used, malathion would have cost $637,000, and propoxur would have cost $1,762,000 for the same control. A 1.5 oz. whisky jigger full of 70 percent wettable DDT covers 144 square feet of wall surface, killing all mosquitoes that land there during the next six months.

Evidence That DDT Fights Cancer

• Drs. Charles Salinskas and Allan E. Okey reported that DDT in rodent diets inhibited development of induced mammary cancers and leukemia.

• A.E. and E.K. McLean determined that after animals had ingested DDT, the highly toxic aflatoxins they had been fed were not fatal, perhaps because they were converted to non-toxic metabolites by the liver. DDT was also known to induce the formation of hepatic microsomal enzymes which, in turn, inhibited the growth of tumors and cancers.

Dr. Wayland Hayes performed tests for the U.S. Public Health Service, feeding human volunteers up to 35 milligrams of DDT in their food every day for 18 months. (The average human intake of DDT in the United States at that time was about 0.03 mgs per day, or 0.36 mgs per year.) No adverse effects resulted, either at the time of the study, or during the next 10 years.

As a result of such studies, I felt that it was safe for me to ingest DDT. I was delivering addresses to various audiences almost every week. I carried a commercial box of DDT onto the stage, dug out a tablespoon of DDT (about 12 mgs), swallowed it, and washed it down with water before beginning my talk about DDT’s lack of toxicity to vertebrate animals. Esquire magazine, in September 1971, pictured me ingesting a tablespoon of DDT. The text explained that I had “eaten two-hundred times the normal human intake of DDT, to show it’s not as bad as people think.”

At the same time, the pseudo-environmentalists were going wild against DDT. Clifton Curtis of the World Wildlife Fund, for example, wrote that “DDT is so potent that as long as it is used anywhere in the world, nobody is safe”—and provided no data to back up his assertion. Dr. Gilbert L. Ross, of the American Council on Science and Health, characterized Curtis’s remarks as “typical of the dangerous environmental disinformation masquerading as science that has been stirring DDT hysteria ever since the 1960s.” Ross pointed out that “Extensive scientific studies have not found any harm to humans, even during the massive overuse of DDT in agriculture in the 1950s and 60s.” Furthermore, the scientific reports show that there is no indication of DDT use harming people, birds, bird eggshells, or other vertebrate animals.

During the 1960s, the World Health Organization proposed the possible eradication of malaria, worldwide, and malaria control was achieved in areas with a population of 279 million people. Thirty-six formerly malarious countries totally eradicated the disease. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated in 1970: To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable. . . .

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Mosquitoes.html






Once widespread in the Western hemisphere (including the Southern U.S.), dengue fever was largely eradicated in the 1960s after the carrier mosquitoes were targeted with the pesticide DDT. The disease slowly rebounded after DDT was banned, and while it generally stays confined to the tropics now, a handful of small, scattered outbreaks have occurred in the U.S. along the Mexican border over the past 30 years, according to the CDC.

Known as "breakbone fever" because of the shattering pain it causes, dengue fever is transmitted by a mosquito found in warm climates, and is not contagious. People often contract dengue fever without realizing they have it, but in some cases it can lead to dengue hemorrhagic fever, a severe form of the illness which causes internal bleeding and can lead to shock and even death.

The CDC and health officials in Florida have confirmed at least 28 cases of the fever in Key West. More than 1,000 other residents -- roughly 5 percent of the local population -- may have been exposed without getting ill, according to a CDC report released last week.

Health officials are worried that the fever may spread northward. "We're concerned that if dengue gains a foothold in Key West, it will travel to other southern cities where the mosquito that transmits dengue is present, like Miami," the chief of the dengue branch at the CDC, Harold Margolis, said in a statement. 

Fun Facts: Mosquitoes, Disease & DDT

At least 80 percent of human infectious diseases are arthropod-borne—transmitted by insects, mites, or ticks. They have caused the death of hundreds of millions of people by infecting them with the pathogens that cause typhus, bubonic plague, yellow fever, malaria, dengue fever, sleeping sickness, encephalitis, elephantiasis, leishmaniasis, and yaws.

More than 3,000 species of mosquitoes have been described in scientific journals. Most of them are in tropical areas, where as many as 150 species have been found in a single square mile. The United States contains about 170 species, Canada 70, and Arctic lands less than two dozen. In the Canadian Arctic, researchers who bared their arms, legs, and torsos in an experiment reported as many as 9,000 bites per minute. Unprotected human beings there could lose half of their blood in two hours, and die. Hundreds of cattle and horses have been killed by just such exsanguination, in our southeastern states.

In addition to its effectiveness, DDT is inexpensive. The cost of spraying in 1959 was $205,000, but if substitutes had to be used, malathion would have cost $637,000, and propoxur would have cost $1,762,000 for the same control. A 1.5 oz. whisky jigger full of 70 percent wettable DDT covers 144 square feet of wall surface, killing all mosquitoes that land there during the next six months.

Evidence That DDT Fights Cancer

• Drs. Charles Salinskas and Allan E. Okey reported that DDT in rodent diets inhibited development of induced mammary cancers and leukemia.

• A.E. and E.K. McLean determined that after animals had ingested DDT, the highly toxic aflatoxins they had been fed were not fatal, perhaps because they were converted to non-toxic metabolites by the liver. DDT was also known to induce the formation of hepatic microsomal enzymes which, in turn, inhibited the growth of tumors and cancers.

Dr. Wayland Hayes performed tests for the U.S. Public Health Service, feeding human volunteers up to 35 milligrams of DDT in their food every day for 18 months. (The average human intake of DDT in the United States at that time was about 0.03 mgs per day, or 0.36 mgs per year.) No adverse effects resulted, either at the time of the study, or during the next 10 years.

As a result of such studies, I felt that it was safe for me to ingest DDT. I was delivering addresses to various audiences almost every week. I carried a commercial box of DDT onto the stage, dug out a tablespoon of DDT (about 12 mgs), swallowed it, and washed it down with water before beginning my talk about DDT’s lack of toxicity to vertebrate animals. Esquire magazine, in September 1971, pictured me ingesting a tablespoon of DDT. The text explained that I had “eaten two-hundred times the normal human intake of DDT, to show it’s not as bad as people think.”

At the same time, the pseudo-environmentalists were going wild against DDT. Clifton Curtis of the World Wildlife Fund, for example, wrote that “DDT is so potent that as long as it is used anywhere in the world, nobody is safe”—and provided no data to back up his assertion. Dr. Gilbert L. Ross, of the American Council on Science and Health, characterized Curtis’s remarks as “typical of the dangerous environmental disinformation masquerading as science that has been stirring DDT hysteria ever since the 1960s.” Ross pointed out that “Extensive scientific studies have not found any harm to humans, even during the massive overuse of DDT in agriculture in the 1950s and 60s.” Furthermore, the scientific reports show that there is no indication of DDT use harming people, birds, bird eggshells, or other vertebrate animals.

During the 1960s, the World Health Organization proposed the possible eradication of malaria, worldwide, and malaria control was achieved in areas with a population of 279 million people. Thirty-six formerly malarious countries totally eradicated the disease. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated in 1970: To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable. . . .

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Mosquitoes.html




Harry Reid Moves To Shut Down Your Speech


Late last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fired a shot directly at your free speech and moved to bring the DISCLOSE ACT (better named the "Establishment Protection Act") to a key vote to shut off debate next Monday night or Tuesday.

Contact Senator Richard Burr at (202) 224-3154 and Senator Kay Hagan at (202) 224-6342 right away and demand they OPPOSE DISCLOSE (S. 3628) on every vote – including cloture.

Senator Chuck Schumer has introduced a revised version and used Senate rules to bypass committee and go straight to the floor, meaning this so-called "transparency" bill will have as little transparency as Senate leaders can get away with.

We've fought this First Amendment-shredding, Big Labor-empowering infringement every step of the way, and we have a chance to strike a devastating blow and uphold the Bill of Rights by preventing cloture.

In fact, if the National Rifle Association and certain huge left-wing groups had not cut a deal to not be covered by DISCLOSE, the bill would have died in the House.

But if we don't act now, we may not have the ability to in the future.

Contact Senator Richard Burr at (202) 224-3154 and Senator Kay Hagan at (202) 224-6342 right away and demand they OPPOSE DISCLOSE (S. 3628) on every vote – including cloture.

The statists would love nothing more than to silence C4L and like-minded organizations by going after our donors for opposing their agenda.

Harry Reid is doing everything he can to railroad the opposition. Let's show him the freedom movement will never back down.

Late last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fired a shot directly at your free speech and moved to bring the DISCLOSE ACT (better named the "Establishment Protection Act") to a key vote to shut off debate next Monday night or Tuesday.

Contact Senator Richard Burr at (202) 224-3154 and Senator Kay Hagan at (202) 224-6342 right away and demand they OPPOSE DISCLOSE (S. 3628) on every vote – including cloture.

Senator Chuck Schumer has introduced a revised version and used Senate rules to bypass committee and go straight to the floor, meaning this so-called "transparency" bill will have as little transparency as Senate leaders can get away with.

We've fought this First Amendment-shredding, Big Labor-empowering infringement every step of the way, and we have a chance to strike a devastating blow and uphold the Bill of Rights by preventing cloture.

In fact, if the National Rifle Association and certain huge left-wing groups had not cut a deal to not be covered by DISCLOSE, the bill would have died in the House.

But if we don't act now, we may not have the ability to in the future.

Contact Senator Richard Burr at (202) 224-3154 and Senator Kay Hagan at (202) 224-6342 right away and demand they OPPOSE DISCLOSE (S. 3628) on every vote – including cloture.

The statists would love nothing more than to silence C4L and like-minded organizations by going after our donors for opposing their agenda.

Harry Reid is doing everything he can to railroad the opposition. Let's show him the freedom movement will never back down.

Tip Of The Iceberg - Leading Democrat Charged W/Ethics Violations

Charlie Rangel enjoys the high life of yet another corrupt Washington Democrat Politician - How could the crook sleep so soundly?  

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 7/22/2010 8:02:49 PM ET

A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats. 

The committee did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat,  but sources who could not discuss the allegations publicly said they include Rangel's misuse of official stationery, his use of rent-subsidized New York apartments and failure to publicly disclose financial information as required.
 _____________________

Oh, you can damn well bet that Charlie Rangel is in deeper than steeling a few post-it notes with his name printed on them. This is big enough that even Nancy Pelosi couldn't cover it up! lol!

Remember Speaker Pelosi's most glaring broken promise: to drain the swamp in Washington? Old Charlie is the beginning of the first of many corrupt Democrats who will go down in flames. But  not through Nancy Pelosi's promised swamp cleaning efforts. I'm sure SanFranNan wishes it was different; that a Republican was being charged with ethics violations. But, truth be told, Nancy never did drain that swamp in Washington. Maybe she couldn't find any dirt on the Repuplicans. I'm sure the Republicans aren't altogether squeaky-clean themselves. But, they've managed to stay out of trouble with Nancy in command. In light that Botox Pelosi is in charge, the old dried up witch would certainly have gone on the hunt for a dirty Republican, had she even thought she had faintly smelled one. Alas, another Democrat was caught behaving badly. What elese is new? 

This brings us back to Charlie Rangel. WIth Nancy Pelosi running interference for all her corrupt Democrat cohorts and cronies, Whatever Charlie Rangel has done must have been one hell of a doozy! I'll bet that Charlie will implicate other Dem politicians in order to save his own liberal ass. A little plea-bargaining may be in Charlie's future. Old Charlie Rangel ain't going down alone. He's taking a few Dems with him! 

Buh-Bye, Charlie!
Charlie Rangel enjoys the high life of yet another corrupt Washington Democrat Politician - How could the crook sleep so soundly?  

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 7/22/2010 8:02:49 PM ET

A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats. 

The committee did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat,  but sources who could not discuss the allegations publicly said they include Rangel's misuse of official stationery, his use of rent-subsidized New York apartments and failure to publicly disclose financial information as required.
 _____________________

Oh, you can damn well bet that Charlie Rangel is in deeper than steeling a few post-it notes with his name printed on them. This is big enough that even Nancy Pelosi couldn't cover it up! lol!

Remember Speaker Pelosi's most glaring broken promise: to drain the swamp in Washington? Old Charlie is the beginning of the first of many corrupt Democrats who will go down in flames. But  not through Nancy Pelosi's promised swamp cleaning efforts. I'm sure SanFranNan wishes it was different; that a Republican was being charged with ethics violations. But, truth be told, Nancy never did drain that swamp in Washington. Maybe she couldn't find any dirt on the Repuplicans. I'm sure the Republicans aren't altogether squeaky-clean themselves. But, they've managed to stay out of trouble with Nancy in command. In light that Botox Pelosi is in charge, the old dried up witch would certainly have gone on the hunt for a dirty Republican, had she even thought she had faintly smelled one. Alas, another Democrat was caught behaving badly. What elese is new? 

This brings us back to Charlie Rangel. WIth Nancy Pelosi running interference for all her corrupt Democrat cohorts and cronies, Whatever Charlie Rangel has done must have been one hell of a doozy! I'll bet that Charlie will implicate other Dem politicians in order to save his own liberal ass. A little plea-bargaining may be in Charlie's future. Old Charlie Rangel ain't going down alone. He's taking a few Dems with him! 

Buh-Bye, Charlie!

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Presidents Playing Poker















GOP Presidents Playing Poker & Having Fun.

















Democrat Presidents Playing Poker & Gambling With Other People's Money
.














GOP Presidents Playing Poker & Having Fun.

















Democrat Presidents Playing Poker & Gambling With Other People's Money
.