Posts
I love this crazy, tragic,
Sometimes almost magic,
Awful, beautiful life
Darryl Worley
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Barack Obama Lack-Of-Variety Show [Mark Steyn]
...This is an amazing race. The incumbent president has approval ratings somewhere between Robert Mugabe and the ebola virus. The economy is supposedly on the brink of global Armageddon. McCain has only $80 million to spend, while Obama's burning through $600 mil as fast as he can, and he doesn't really need to spend a dime given the wall-to-wall media adoration. And tonight Chris Matthews' doctors announced that his leg tingle has metastasized leaving his entire body like a vibrating cellphone whose ringtone is locked on "I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love, I'm In Love With A Wonderful Guy."
And yet an old cranky broke loser is within two or three points of the King of the World. Strange.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
How Foreign Liberals (and Jihadi's for that matter) Can Contribute Illegally to the Obama Campaign
I ran across this blog surfing the web. First person account from this blogger how he was able to ILLEGALLY contribute to the Obama campaign. It has been reported as the author states about that the Obama campaign gathered a never before total of 150 million in one month, in a down economy and how many of those contributions were illegal such as this article on Townhall.com
However the larger concern is what is being done about it? According to the Townhall blog,"The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions"
Outrageous!
Written by John Ronning
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
PBTS
How Foreign Liberals (and Jihadi's for that matter) Can Contribute Illegally to the Obama Campaign
It’s pretty easy — all you need is a credit card (foreign card is OK), a phony name, phony US address, phony telephone number, and just keep each contribution less than $200 so your illegal contribution never needs to be reported. As a foreigner you can even give more than Americans are allowed to legally contribute, by just using a different phony name each time you contribute, so that your contributions are never tallied, thus never exceed the limit.
And of course American supporters of Obama can also contribute more than the legal limit by following the same procedure. Not to mention the fact that you can easily steal someone else's credit card number and contribute through it, not needing the correct name etc. (yes it has happened), and just hope the victim doesn't notice it.
Last Friday I read on various web sites (e.g. NRO) that the Obama campaign was facilitating illegal credit card contributions by disabling standard security verification procedures. Normally, a credit card payment is rejected if the name you give does not match the name on the card. Duh. Not so the Obama campaign.
I said to myself, "If Americans can do this, I wonder if foreigners could too?" I’m a US citizen, but I have lived in South Africa for the last ten years and have a foreign credit card, from a South African bank. So I googled the Obama campaign web site and used my foreign credit card to contribute $5 (the minimum accepted) to his campaign. Sure enough, my account was charged $5 (54 Rand) on Monday. I assume that if I could do it, all those French who want Obama to be president could do it too.
Money translates into votes, because propaganda is effective, including obvious lies which are endlessly repeated.
Here, then, are the step by step instructions for fraudulently contributing to the Obama campaign, and participating in the mother of all campaign swindles:
Go to the Obama web site, find the page where contributions are accepted (I won’t link to it, but it’s not hard to find).
Listen to Obama’s spiel which automatically plays, telling you that since he’s not taking money from PAC’s or Lobbyists (nothing about foreigners), he’s depending upon you to contribute.
Fill in the name, address, etc., according to your imagination. Nothing needs to be correct except the credit card number. I used the name "Good Guess", a phony address etc., and got the message that my donation was accepted; three days later the money was charged to my account.
During those three days a couple of mainstream newspapers did some whitewashing work for Obama, failing to make clear the deliberateness of Obama’s disabling of standard security checks to prevent credit card fraud, failing to point out the obvious, that you cannot get away with such fraud on the McCain/Palin web site, etc.
Next I had the opportunity to have Obama e-mail my friends, inviting them to follow my example. I had them send an e-mail from "Good Guess" to one of my e-mail addresses, and a short time later the e-mail arrived.
I know from experience that the Obama web site could be set up to automatically detect if it is being accessed from a foreign country (South Africa, in my case). I know from experience that it could be set up to reject foreign credit cards, even if the names and addresses were correct (for example, I cannot use my American credit card for certain transactions in South Africa).
And by the way, you can also contribute to Obama anonymously through those pre-paid credit cards you buy at the drug store.
As another Republican candidate said 12 years ago, "Where is the outrage?"
P.S. I am asking for my money back.
Documentation:
Here is a screen shot of Obama’s "thanks" for my contribution.
Here is a screen shot of the e-mail I got from the Obama campaign, soliciting me to join in this fraudulent enterprise.
Here is a screen shot of my online bank statement (personal names blacked out).
No comments for this item
Disclaimer: I did not investigate this site as to the their doctrine of Christianity. As such I am not endorsing or not endorsing any articles devoted to doctrine on this blog
However the larger concern is what is being done about it? According to the Townhall blog,"The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions"
Outrageous!
Written by John Ronning
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
PBTS
How Foreign Liberals (and Jihadi's for that matter) Can Contribute Illegally to the Obama Campaign
It’s pretty easy — all you need is a credit card (foreign card is OK), a phony name, phony US address, phony telephone number, and just keep each contribution less than $200 so your illegal contribution never needs to be reported. As a foreigner you can even give more than Americans are allowed to legally contribute, by just using a different phony name each time you contribute, so that your contributions are never tallied, thus never exceed the limit.And of course American supporters of Obama can also contribute more than the legal limit by following the same procedure. Not to mention the fact that you can easily steal someone else's credit card number and contribute through it, not needing the correct name etc. (yes it has happened), and just hope the victim doesn't notice it.
Last Friday I read on various web sites (e.g. NRO) that the Obama campaign was facilitating illegal credit card contributions by disabling standard security verification procedures. Normally, a credit card payment is rejected if the name you give does not match the name on the card. Duh. Not so the Obama campaign.
I said to myself, "If Americans can do this, I wonder if foreigners could too?" I’m a US citizen, but I have lived in South Africa for the last ten years and have a foreign credit card, from a South African bank. So I googled the Obama campaign web site and used my foreign credit card to contribute $5 (the minimum accepted) to his campaign. Sure enough, my account was charged $5 (54 Rand) on Monday. I assume that if I could do it, all those French who want Obama to be president could do it too.
Money translates into votes, because propaganda is effective, including obvious lies which are endlessly repeated.
Here, then, are the step by step instructions for fraudulently contributing to the Obama campaign, and participating in the mother of all campaign swindles:
Go to the Obama web site, find the page where contributions are accepted (I won’t link to it, but it’s not hard to find).
Listen to Obama’s spiel which automatically plays, telling you that since he’s not taking money from PAC’s or Lobbyists (nothing about foreigners), he’s depending upon you to contribute.
Fill in the name, address, etc., according to your imagination. Nothing needs to be correct except the credit card number. I used the name "Good Guess", a phony address etc., and got the message that my donation was accepted; three days later the money was charged to my account.
During those three days a couple of mainstream newspapers did some whitewashing work for Obama, failing to make clear the deliberateness of Obama’s disabling of standard security checks to prevent credit card fraud, failing to point out the obvious, that you cannot get away with such fraud on the McCain/Palin web site, etc.
Next I had the opportunity to have Obama e-mail my friends, inviting them to follow my example. I had them send an e-mail from "Good Guess" to one of my e-mail addresses, and a short time later the e-mail arrived.
I know from experience that the Obama web site could be set up to automatically detect if it is being accessed from a foreign country (South Africa, in my case). I know from experience that it could be set up to reject foreign credit cards, even if the names and addresses were correct (for example, I cannot use my American credit card for certain transactions in South Africa).
And by the way, you can also contribute to Obama anonymously through those pre-paid credit cards you buy at the drug store.
As another Republican candidate said 12 years ago, "Where is the outrage?"
P.S. I am asking for my money back.
Documentation:
Here is a screen shot of Obama’s "thanks" for my contribution.
Here is a screen shot of the e-mail I got from the Obama campaign, soliciting me to join in this fraudulent enterprise.
Here is a screen shot of my online bank statement (personal names blacked out).
No comments for this item
Disclaimer: I did not investigate this site as to the their doctrine of Christianity. As such I am not endorsing or not endorsing any articles devoted to doctrine on this blog
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Bill Clinton appointed federal judge rules homeless voters may list Park Benches as Addresses
No this isn't from The Onion. Its true! What's next, bus stops, phone booths? I guess anything goes if you find a Democrat appointed judge
Ohio Voter Fraud almost Complete
By Sher Zieve
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Canada Free Press
From one corrupt Ohio Democrat official to another, the state of Ohio’s voter fraud may now be complete—all it’s missing are the palm tree in this newly emerged banana republic. And said voter fraud has now been “officially” sanctioned by a liberal—if not leftist—Ohio judge.
First there was Democrat and ardent Obama-supporter Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner who admitted she had hidden over 200,000 suspect or outright fraudulent voter registrations—which have, now, apparently been turned into early Ohio votes. As in at least 15 states, Democrat candidate Obama’s election fraud group ACORN had delivered said registrations.
Although both Ohio State and Federal law demanded that Brunner adhere to the law, she refused to do so. She had also refused to allow Ohio’s elections’ boards to check whether or not there is voter fraud. US District Court Judge George C. Smith ordered Brunner to uphold the law. Stating that forcing her to check all fraudulent registrations was too much work and constituted “voter suppression”, Brunner appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court.
Subsequently, SCOTUS delivered a ruling that may just sway the election in favor of allowing voter fraud to continue. In its unsigned decision, the US Supreme Court ruled on neither the merits of the original case and ruling nor the same of Brunner’s argument. Instead, in a per curiam ruling (one issued by the court in toto instead of individual judges and not generally associated with the merits of a case), the court ruled in Brunner’s favor on a technicality with “Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO.”
Ohio’s early voting laws allow voters to register and vote on the same day. This has given birth to even more voter fraud, including the voting of individuals who are not even residents of the state and ACORN-registered voters registering to vote multiple times (one admitted and subsequently testified to having registered 70 times or more for money and cigarettes given to him by ACORN).
Now, in an apparent move to further destroy the state’s (and ultimately the nation’s) voting laws in favor of the Socialist/Communist candidate, Clinton-appointed liberal US District Court Judge Edmund Sargus has ruled that those claiming to be homeless voters may list their “homes” as any specific park bench. Of course, anyone and/or everyone may now register as “homeless in Ohio” even if they are from other states or even other countries.
In order to complete—to the best of his ability—said destruction of real voters’ rights, Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots cannot be invalidated because of poll worker errors. Note: I imagine there are LOTS of ACORN workers in Ohio who are now functioning as “poll workers.”
Like it or not, this unprecedented voter fraud is being waged against We-the-People by Democrats—either elected or appointed. As we have witnessed in other countries, most recently Venezuela, once any candidate has enough operatives in place the fix is in. We are seeing it now in the USA.
With nationwide voter fraud firmly ensconced in the system, elections will mean nothing and we will never be able to get rid of them. Just ask those who have managed to escape third world dictatorships. With Barack Hussein Obama as POTUS, we will soon join them.
Ohio Voter Fraud almost CompleteBy Sher Zieve
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Canada Free Press
From one corrupt Ohio Democrat official to another, the state of Ohio’s voter fraud may now be complete—all it’s missing are the palm tree in this newly emerged banana republic. And said voter fraud has now been “officially” sanctioned by a liberal—if not leftist—Ohio judge.
First there was Democrat and ardent Obama-supporter Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner who admitted she had hidden over 200,000 suspect or outright fraudulent voter registrations—which have, now, apparently been turned into early Ohio votes. As in at least 15 states, Democrat candidate Obama’s election fraud group ACORN had delivered said registrations.
Although both Ohio State and Federal law demanded that Brunner adhere to the law, she refused to do so. She had also refused to allow Ohio’s elections’ boards to check whether or not there is voter fraud. US District Court Judge George C. Smith ordered Brunner to uphold the law. Stating that forcing her to check all fraudulent registrations was too much work and constituted “voter suppression”, Brunner appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court.
Subsequently, SCOTUS delivered a ruling that may just sway the election in favor of allowing voter fraud to continue. In its unsigned decision, the US Supreme Court ruled on neither the merits of the original case and ruling nor the same of Brunner’s argument. Instead, in a per curiam ruling (one issued by the court in toto instead of individual judges and not generally associated with the merits of a case), the court ruled in Brunner’s favor on a technicality with “Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO.”
Ohio’s early voting laws allow voters to register and vote on the same day. This has given birth to even more voter fraud, including the voting of individuals who are not even residents of the state and ACORN-registered voters registering to vote multiple times (one admitted and subsequently testified to having registered 70 times or more for money and cigarettes given to him by ACORN).
Now, in an apparent move to further destroy the state’s (and ultimately the nation’s) voting laws in favor of the Socialist/Communist candidate, Clinton-appointed liberal US District Court Judge Edmund Sargus has ruled that those claiming to be homeless voters may list their “homes” as any specific park bench. Of course, anyone and/or everyone may now register as “homeless in Ohio” even if they are from other states or even other countries.
In order to complete—to the best of his ability—said destruction of real voters’ rights, Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots cannot be invalidated because of poll worker errors. Note: I imagine there are LOTS of ACORN workers in Ohio who are now functioning as “poll workers.”
Like it or not, this unprecedented voter fraud is being waged against We-the-People by Democrats—either elected or appointed. As we have witnessed in other countries, most recently Venezuela, once any candidate has enough operatives in place the fix is in. We are seeing it now in the USA.
With nationwide voter fraud firmly ensconced in the system, elections will mean nothing and we will never be able to get rid of them. Just ask those who have managed to escape third world dictatorships. With Barack Hussein Obama as POTUS, we will soon join them.
Obama-More terrorists-Rashid Khalidi
Obama worked with terrorist Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence
February 24, 2008
By Aaron Klein© 2008 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.
The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama.
Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president.
The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000. Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.
Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The $40,000 grant from Obama's Woods Fund to the AAAN constituted about a fifth of the Arab group's reported grants for 2001, according to tax filings obtained by WND. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 also constituted about one-fifth of AAAN's reported grants for that year.
The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Palestinian immigrant community, describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities."
It reportedly has worked on projects with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which supports open boarders and education for illegal aliens. The AAAN in 2005 sent a letter to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in which it called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims."
Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948.
According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands - some Palestinians claim over one million - Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory.
Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded.
The theme of AAAN's Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was "the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life ... under [Israeli] occupation ... home demolition ... statelessness ... bereavement ... martyrdom, and ... the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom." Another AAAN initiative, titled, "Al Nakba 1948 as experienced by Chicago Palestinians," seeks documents related to the "catastrophe" of Israel's founding.
A post on the AAAN site asked users: "Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?" That posting was recently removed. The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction.
Pro-PLO advocate held Obama fundraiser, describes Obama as 'sympathetic' AAAN co-founder Rashid Khalidi was reportedly a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, while the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group.
Khalidi's wife, AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA's English translator during that period. Rashid Khalidi at times has denied working directly for the PLO but Palestinian diplomatic sources in Ramallah told WND he indeed worked on behalf of WAFA.
Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991. During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state.
He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.
While the Woods Fund's contribution to Khalidi's AAAN might be perceived as a one-time run in with Obama, the presidential hopeful and Khalidi evidence a deeper relationship.
According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity.
Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004. Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.
Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor Show of New York's WABC Radio and Los Angeles' KFI Radio, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama. "I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician," Khalidi stated. Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."
Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can't talk with the Iranians." Asked about Obama's role funding the AAAN, Khalidi claimed he had "never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago." He terminated the call when petitioned further about his links with Obama.
Contacted by phone, Mona Khalidi refused to answer WND's questions about the AAAN's involvement with Obama. Obama's campaign headquarters did not reply to a list of WND questions sent by e-mail to the senator's press office.
Obama, American terrorist in same circles Obama served on the board with Ayers, who was a Weathermen leader and has written about his involvement with the group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough,"
Ayers told the New York Times in an interview released on Sept. 11, 2001 "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon," Ayers wrote in his memoirs, titled "Fugitive Days." He continued with a disclaimer that he didn't personally set the bombs, but his group set the explosives and planned the attack.
A $200 campaign contribution is listed on April 2, 2001 by the "Friends of Barack Obama" campaign fund. The two taught appeared speaking together at several public events, including a 1997 University of Chicago panel entitled, "Should a child ever be called a 'super predator?'" and another panel for the University of Illinois in April 2002, entitled, "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"
The charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance. Ayers is married to another notorious Weathermen terrorist, Bernadine Dohrn, who has also served on panels with Obama. Dohrn was once on the FBI's Top 10 Most Wanted List and was described by J. Edgar Hoover as the "most dangerous woman in America."
Ayers and Dohrn raised the son of Weathermen terrorist Kathy Boudin, who was serving a sentence for participating in a 1981 murder and robbery that left 4 people dead.
The revelations about Obama's relationship with Khalidi follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.
Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.
Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Bill Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Exercising my 2nd Amendment right with my Congressman
Blogging is fun. However, some days are more fun than others. Like today. Today I got an opportunity to be on the gun range with Congressman Mike Rogers. The Congressman was at Total Firearms a full service gun shop in Mason to meet with his constituents to discuss the current state of our Second Amendment rights , as well as other critical issues.
Smaller and more casual event, which was great for meeting other shooters and "hanging out" with Congressman Rogers. I have had several occassions in the past few months to interview or be at events with Mike Rodgers and I find him to be a genuine nice guy with a great sense of humor.
Hunters, gun owners, veterans as well as some local candidates including, Chris Greenshield candidate for Ingham County sheriff were in attendance.
Gun owners have cause for concern in a Barack Obama administration as he has consistently voted against gun owners rights including;
• Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
• Concealed carry OK for only retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
• Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Supported the D.C. handgun ban, and said that it's constitutional
And Barack Obama said in August 14, 2007, "I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."
I asked Congressman Rogers;
What would it mean to our 2nd Amendment rights to have an Obama presidency?
Congressman Rogers;
"First of all you have some who is not a passive person about taking away our 2nd Amendment protections. He has aggressively taken steps to make it harder to own hand guns or any firearms for that matter." In his time in the state Senate and in his words and speeches, he has very clearly said, he does not believe in the fundamental right of gun ownership.
He has also said that he believes in the 2nd Amendment however, he believes the government can and should regulate those individual rights.
Which is him saying one thing but meaning another. And when you get an aggressive president with an already controlled Democrat House and Senate, my concern is that, it makes it very easy to get back in the business of restricting gun ownership in the United States. That's what concerns me and that's why this issues needs to be talked about. And really hasn't been. If you believe that the 1st Amendment is important than the 2nd is equally important and so is 3rd and down the line.
They are all important and there for a reason and they all need to be respected. And for them to pick and choose the ones they like is, A. Unconstitutional and B. Dangerous. So once again my concern is that because he is very aggressive about taking away our 2nd Amendment protections he will certainly continue to pursue that goal if elected"
After a few other questions and answers a few of us accepted the invitation of Doug, the owner to Total Firearms, to go to the indoor shooting range for a little practice. Doug had a newer firearm that he invited Mike to shoot, a 5.7x28 FN Herstal FS2000 Semi-Auto Carbine Rifle.
So Mike, a former FBI agent was happy to try it out. After firing off a few rounds, he commented that he didn't have the opportunity to get to the range as much as he wanted. A couple of us took turns with a Smith & Wesson M&Pc 9mm. I squeezed off the magazine and hit center of mass. Dead prep Yeah me!
I had not done any shooting in a couple of years, since I got my CCW. However, I forgot how much fun it is! I got a S&W catalog and looks like there will be a "new member of the family" shortly, a S&W M&P9c
Then a couple of Rogers's staffers shot for the 1st time and they loved it!
I think Total Firearms have more new customers.
A big thanks to Total Firearms for hosting the event and for the shootin' fun. If you are looking to purchase a firearm or need some questions answered the staff at Total Firearms are top notch and with an indoor as well as an outdoor range you are able to get in year round practice.
Another big thanks to Congressman Rogers for his service and for always being so gracious to this blogger
Smaller and more casual event, which was great for meeting other shooters and "hanging out" with Congressman Rogers. I have had several occassions in the past few months to interview or be at events with Mike Rodgers and I find him to be a genuine nice guy with a great sense of humor.
Hunters, gun owners, veterans as well as some local candidates including, Chris Greenshield candidate for Ingham County sheriff were in attendance.
Gun owners have cause for concern in a Barack Obama administration as he has consistently voted against gun owners rights including;
• Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
• 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
• Concealed carry OK for only retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
• Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Supported the D.C. handgun ban, and said that it's constitutional
And Barack Obama said in August 14, 2007, "I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."
I asked Congressman Rogers;
What would it mean to our 2nd Amendment rights to have an Obama presidency?
Congressman Rogers;
"First of all you have some who is not a passive person about taking away our 2nd Amendment protections. He has aggressively taken steps to make it harder to own hand guns or any firearms for that matter." In his time in the state Senate and in his words and speeches, he has very clearly said, he does not believe in the fundamental right of gun ownership.
He has also said that he believes in the 2nd Amendment however, he believes the government can and should regulate those individual rights.
Which is him saying one thing but meaning another. And when you get an aggressive president with an already controlled Democrat House and Senate, my concern is that, it makes it very easy to get back in the business of restricting gun ownership in the United States. That's what concerns me and that's why this issues needs to be talked about. And really hasn't been. If you believe that the 1st Amendment is important than the 2nd is equally important and so is 3rd and down the line.
They are all important and there for a reason and they all need to be respected. And for them to pick and choose the ones they like is, A. Unconstitutional and B. Dangerous. So once again my concern is that because he is very aggressive about taking away our 2nd Amendment protections he will certainly continue to pursue that goal if elected"
After a few other questions and answers a few of us accepted the invitation of Doug, the owner to Total Firearms, to go to the indoor shooting range for a little practice. Doug had a newer firearm that he invited Mike to shoot, a 5.7x28 FN Herstal FS2000 Semi-Auto Carbine Rifle.So Mike, a former FBI agent was happy to try it out. After firing off a few rounds, he commented that he didn't have the opportunity to get to the range as much as he wanted. A couple of us took turns with a Smith & Wesson M&Pc 9mm. I squeezed off the magazine and hit center of mass. Dead prep Yeah me!
I had not done any shooting in a couple of years, since I got my CCW. However, I forgot how much fun it is! I got a S&W catalog and looks like there will be a "new member of the family" shortly, a S&W M&P9c
Then a couple of Rogers's staffers shot for the 1st time and they loved it!
I think Total Firearms have more new customers.
A big thanks to Total Firearms for hosting the event and for the shootin' fun. If you are looking to purchase a firearm or need some questions answered the staff at Total Firearms are top notch and with an indoor as well as an outdoor range you are able to get in year round practice.
Another big thanks to Congressman Rogers for his service and for always being so gracious to this blogger
Wayne Huizenga wants to sell Dolphins before Barack Obama raises tax
SunSentinel.com
By Sarah Talalay
Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.
That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.
"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."
Ross purchased 50 percent of the team and Dolphin Stadium for $550 million earlier this year with the intention he would eventually become majority owner. NFL owners approved the eventual transfer this month, meaning it can take place anytime.
"If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes," Huizenga said.
But the Obama campaign disputed Huizenga's figures on Monday, saying the candidate's plans are to raise the capital gains tax maximum from 15 percent to 20 percent -- a 33 percent increase, not double. And the top rate would be for families earning more than $250,000 or individuals earning more than $200,000.
"Mr. Huizenga is wrong about Senator Obama's tax plan, which calls for a maximum capital-gains rate of 20 percent -- a third lower than the rate that President Reagan set in 1986," said Bobby Gravitz, Obama campaign South Florida spokesman. "Furthermore, Senator Obama's tax cut for 95 percent of working families will mean a whole lot of Dolfans will be better able to afford those ever-rising ticket prices."
Regardless of when he sells, Huizenga vows to maintain a 5-percent stake in the team.
"It's been 19 years and after 19 years, it's kind of time," he said. "I don't want to be one of those owners who gets real old and hangs in there, we know some of those stories already, I don't want to be one of those guys."
Ok here we have Obama confirming that his tax plan INCLUDES small business "or individuals earning more than $200,000."
And the lie that of "tax cut for 95 percent of working families"
Information below is from The Tax Foundation that refutes "Senator Government's" claim
The major findings include:
To the surprise of some, even though Senator Obama's tax plan lowers taxes for the bottom four quintiles, marginal tax rates would fall only for the very lowest-income couples.
Taking both income and payroll taxes into account, those at the very bottom of the income distribution would see their effective marginal tax rates fall from 27.4 percent to minus 58.6 percent due to proposed changes to the earned income tax credit and Senator Obama's new "Making Work Pay" credit.
Most low- and moderate-income couples would see their effective marginal tax rates rise, in some cases, significantly. Indeed, some low- and moderate-income taxpayers will see their marginal rates rise to more than 50 percent.
Under Sen. Obama's plan, the already negative marginal tax rates for low-income taxpayers drop further, due to his proposals to expand the EITC and for a new "Making Work Pay" credit.
The new credit would equal 6.2 percent of the first $8,100 of a worker's wages, and it would phase out for moderate-income taxpayers. Both of these provisions would sharply reduce marginal tax rates for taxpayers with the lowest earnings, reducing their combined income and payroll tax rates to minus 58.6 percent.
However, these and other provisions are phased out in short order under both current law and Senator Obama's tax plan, which causes effective marginal tax rates to rise for moderate-income taxpayers.
Senator Obama also expands the child and dependent care credit and begins to phase down this expansion at $30,000 of income. The combination of the phase-out of the EITC, the "Making Work Pay" credit, and the child and dependent care credit pushes the effective marginal tax rate to as high as 51.7 percent.
That is, the taxpayer who benefits from all these provisions at a lower income discovers that he gets to keep less than one half of every additional dollar of earnings in the roughly $30,000-to-$43,000 range
By Sarah Talalay
Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga said Sunday no date has been set for selling up to 45 percent more of the team to Stephen Ross, but the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision.
That's because a Barack Obama administration is expected to mean higher capital-gains taxes.
"He wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga said. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him."
Ross purchased 50 percent of the team and Dolphin Stadium for $550 million earlier this year with the intention he would eventually become majority owner. NFL owners approved the eventual transfer this month, meaning it can take place anytime.
"If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes," Huizenga said.
But the Obama campaign disputed Huizenga's figures on Monday, saying the candidate's plans are to raise the capital gains tax maximum from 15 percent to 20 percent -- a 33 percent increase, not double. And the top rate would be for families earning more than $250,000 or individuals earning more than $200,000.
"Mr. Huizenga is wrong about Senator Obama's tax plan, which calls for a maximum capital-gains rate of 20 percent -- a third lower than the rate that President Reagan set in 1986," said Bobby Gravitz, Obama campaign South Florida spokesman. "Furthermore, Senator Obama's tax cut for 95 percent of working families will mean a whole lot of Dolfans will be better able to afford those ever-rising ticket prices."
Regardless of when he sells, Huizenga vows to maintain a 5-percent stake in the team.
"It's been 19 years and after 19 years, it's kind of time," he said. "I don't want to be one of those owners who gets real old and hangs in there, we know some of those stories already, I don't want to be one of those guys."
Ok here we have Obama confirming that his tax plan INCLUDES small business "or individuals earning more than $200,000."
And the lie that of "tax cut for 95 percent of working families"
Information below is from The Tax Foundation that refutes "Senator Government's" claim
The major findings include:
To the surprise of some, even though Senator Obama's tax plan lowers taxes for the bottom four quintiles, marginal tax rates would fall only for the very lowest-income couples.
Taking both income and payroll taxes into account, those at the very bottom of the income distribution would see their effective marginal tax rates fall from 27.4 percent to minus 58.6 percent due to proposed changes to the earned income tax credit and Senator Obama's new "Making Work Pay" credit.
Most low- and moderate-income couples would see their effective marginal tax rates rise, in some cases, significantly. Indeed, some low- and moderate-income taxpayers will see their marginal rates rise to more than 50 percent.
Under Sen. Obama's plan, the already negative marginal tax rates for low-income taxpayers drop further, due to his proposals to expand the EITC and for a new "Making Work Pay" credit.
The new credit would equal 6.2 percent of the first $8,100 of a worker's wages, and it would phase out for moderate-income taxpayers. Both of these provisions would sharply reduce marginal tax rates for taxpayers with the lowest earnings, reducing their combined income and payroll tax rates to minus 58.6 percent.
However, these and other provisions are phased out in short order under both current law and Senator Obama's tax plan, which causes effective marginal tax rates to rise for moderate-income taxpayers.
Senator Obama also expands the child and dependent care credit and begins to phase down this expansion at $30,000 of income. The combination of the phase-out of the EITC, the "Making Work Pay" credit, and the child and dependent care credit pushes the effective marginal tax rate to as high as 51.7 percent.
That is, the taxpayer who benefits from all these provisions at a lower income discovers that he gets to keep less than one half of every additional dollar of earnings in the roughly $30,000-to-$43,000 range
Oh and thank you Wayne!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Starting the Week Out Right
American Thinker
October 25, 2008
Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory
By Steven M. Warshawsky
Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.
What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose. What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama "winning" the race. (But see here and here.) The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama's rallies. The legions of blacks and young people who are more "inspired" than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests. Etc. We all know the story by heart by now.
This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain.
There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.
Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)
Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.
Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.
There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)
Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.
The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.
Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.
Of course, we all know what the mainstream media's "narrative" will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election: The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics). The "right-wing attack machine" scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest. Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting. We know this story by heart as well.
So be prepared. In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier. For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.
October 25, 2008
Signs Pointing To A McCain VictoryBy Steven M. Warshawsky
Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.
What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose. What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama "winning" the race. (But see here and here.) The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama's rallies. The legions of blacks and young people who are more "inspired" than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests. Etc. We all know the story by heart by now.
This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain.
There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)
Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.
Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.
There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)
Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.
The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.
Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.
Of course, we all know what the mainstream media's "narrative" will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election: The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics). The "right-wing attack machine" scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest. Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting. We know this story by heart as well.
So be prepared. In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier. For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
October Surprise
Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!
In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview
Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth!!!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
After Action Report: Stop Obama Tour-Lansing,MI
A cool wind and dry weather greeted the big Our Country Deserves Better bus as it pulled up to the State Capitol but The Stop Obama Tour received a warm welcome from McCain/Palin supporters gathered there for the Stop Obama Rally.There were folks there from Ingham, Eaton and counties beyound. Whole families were there as well as veterans, seniors,GenXers,NRA members, friends, neighbors and local candidates running for office.
Mark Williams a veteran journalist and conservative radio talk show host started the Rally and introduced yours truly who did did my best to fire up the crowd with a short speech. Which if you have the patience can be heard on the YouTube video below.Side bar: when I spotted the sign held by the young man I went over to ask him if I could get a picture because I thought it was a great sign, Obama o8 Osama 09. The young girl with him said, "Oh I know you, you don't me but I was on your blog today." So bloggers take heart, even if you do not get lots of comments does not mean that people aren't reading and following your blog. So fellow bloggers, keep on doing what you do!
Next up was Lloyd Marcus, self professed black conservative and a talented singer/songwriter who sang "Sarah Smile" a tribute to Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. Great song, crowd loved it.
Marine Mom Deborah Johns spoke next, very eloquently to stand up to Barack Obama's anti-military, "Blame America First" policies in his campaign for president and Commander-in-Chief.
Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, candidate for U.S Senate seat now held by Carl Levin spoke next reminding us how badly Carl needs to go!
Interesting side note, as I waited for the bus I noticed a woman who looked she was there for the Rally so I asked her if she wanted to hop in my warm car as I practiced my little speech.
In the course of our conservation she told me she was an Independent voting for McCain. Voted for Democrats and Levin in the past but no more. What she has seen of Barack Obama, she related to me, was enough to scare her to death. I guess this was one Michigan Independent for McCain the pollsters missed. Bottom line; Its still a close race and it ain't over till the fat lady sings! 
Lloyd Marcus,wrapped up the Rally by singing,"Proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood and pulled Norm Shinkle, Ingham County chair out the crowd who sang his heart out!
Great time and thanks to Our Country Deserves Better for the tour and their great TV ads to STOP OBAMA. If you wish to donate to keep their TV ads coming, please visit their web site by clicking on the Our Country Deserves Better link above.My neighbor and friend Nancy who helped me do lit drops in the sub for Mike Herter running for State Rep
Old bud of mine, Georgia from the "Friends of Funding Fathers Days". A citizens action group several of us politicos founded back in the day.
Old bud of mine, Georgia from the "Friends of Funding Fathers Days". A citizens action group several of us politicos founded back in the day.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obamaland
Workforce Magazine
The spectre of a Democrat super majority continues to provide more chills than a Hollywood Halloween movie. The assault this time is against our 401k and the attempt to "help us" to not lose money on Wall Street by eliminating the tax break on 401ks, and requiring payment into a government administrated program that invest our money for us and guarantees a whopping 3% !
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
(Teresa Ghilarducci in an article entitled," The End of Retirement" calls Social Security privatization a "nightmare". And laments "decline of union contracts" and "the substitution of defined contribution or 401(k)-type accounts for traditional defined benefit pensions. " She concludes that "401(k) plans reveal that workers will never be able to accumulate enough assets in individual accounts and choose payout options that will provide a steady stream of income for life after retirement. This means that Americans will turn to the option that American adults have always relied on—contingent, low-paying jobs—"
In other words, the government need to make sure we are "taken care of" in retirement because its obvious to her that we are doing a poor job of it ourselves! The answer? Socialized retirement program. Obama will love this)
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration.
The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said. “I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said. “This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott. “That is part of the discussion,” he said.
While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist. Savings rate“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said. “If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.
The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.
“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.
No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year. However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.
In addition to tax breaks for 401(k)s, the issue of allowing investment advisors to provide advice for 401(k) plans was also addressed at the hearing. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, was critical of Department of Labor proposals made in August that would allow advisors to give individual advice if the advice was generated using a computer model.
Andrews characterized the proposals as “loopholes” and said that investment advice should not be given by advisors who have a direct interest in the sale of financial products.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 contains provisions making it easier for investment advisors to give individualized counseling to 401(k) holders.
“In retrospect that doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me,” Andrews said. “This is an issue I think we have to revisit. I frankly think that the compromise we struck in 2006 is not terribly workable or wise,” he said.
On Thursday, October 9, the Department of Labor hastily scheduled a public hearing on the issue in Washington for Tuesday, October 21.
The agency does not frequently hold public hearings on its proposals.
Filed by Sara Hansard of Investment News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.
The spectre of a Democrat super majority continues to provide more chills than a Hollywood Halloween movie. The assault this time is against our 401k and the attempt to "help us" to not lose money on Wall Street by eliminating the tax break on 401ks, and requiring payment into a government administrated program that invest our money for us and guarantees a whopping 3% !
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
(Teresa Ghilarducci in an article entitled," The End of Retirement" calls Social Security privatization a "nightmare". And laments "decline of union contracts" and "the substitution of defined contribution or 401(k)-type accounts for traditional defined benefit pensions. " She concludes that "401(k) plans reveal that workers will never be able to accumulate enough assets in individual accounts and choose payout options that will provide a steady stream of income for life after retirement. This means that Americans will turn to the option that American adults have always relied on—contingent, low-paying jobs—"
In other words, the government need to make sure we are "taken care of" in retirement because its obvious to her that we are doing a poor job of it ourselves! The answer? Socialized retirement program. Obama will love this)
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration.
The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said. “I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said. “This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott. “That is part of the discussion,” he said.
While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist. Savings rate“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said. “If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.
The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.
“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.
No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year. However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.
In addition to tax breaks for 401(k)s, the issue of allowing investment advisors to provide advice for 401(k) plans was also addressed at the hearing. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, was critical of Department of Labor proposals made in August that would allow advisors to give individual advice if the advice was generated using a computer model.
Andrews characterized the proposals as “loopholes” and said that investment advice should not be given by advisors who have a direct interest in the sale of financial products.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 contains provisions making it easier for investment advisors to give individualized counseling to 401(k) holders.
“In retrospect that doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me,” Andrews said. “This is an issue I think we have to revisit. I frankly think that the compromise we struck in 2006 is not terribly workable or wise,” he said.
On Thursday, October 9, the Department of Labor hastily scheduled a public hearing on the issue in Washington for Tuesday, October 21.
The agency does not frequently hold public hearings on its proposals.
Filed by Sara Hansard of Investment News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.
Proposal 1
Crossposted on RightMichigan
Proposal 1 was put on our ballot here in Michigan by a group almost entirely funded by the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington D.C.
They spent a couple million dollars to hire petition circulators to get enough signatures to put this on our ballot. They then wrote a 100 word description of the proposal and went to the Michigan Board of Canvassers and were successful in getting pretty much their wording of the issue.
The problem is not what is in the proposal but what isn’t.
Because the law is very vague and full of loopholes,it will not be legalizing marijuana for extreme medical reasons,it will be legalizing marijuana pretty much across the board.
In California where this was done a few years ago, the law is used to allow anyone to get a doctors note and they can grow their own or “designate someone” to grow it for them. This designation of someone else to grow it for you opens the door to “Pot Clubs” which they have in California and they actually outnumber Starbucks in Southern California.
Proponents of Proposal 1 want us to believe that “medical” marijuana will only be smoked by those who have extreme serious medical conditions. Again one only needs to look to California to see who is really being “treated.”
In cities like San Diego where the issue has been closely examined, only 2% of those smoking marijuana under the guise of medicine have serious conditions such as AIDS, glaucoma and cancer. A full 98% are “treating” more minor conditions such as back and neck pain, anxiety, muscle spasms, insomnia, headaches and other insignificant conditions. But even more troubling is that 12% of the users are under 21!
And while this proposal does not require an employer to “accommodate the ingestion of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working under the influence of marijuana,”it does not address what would be required of any employer if an employee tested positive on a drug test during employment.
Supporters of this proposal say it would not allow an individual to be intoxicated while on the job, but no impairment level has ever been established, and drug tests detect the presence of drugs,not impairment. Studies however, indicate the impairment caused by marijuana use can persist as long as 24 hours - even though the user may no longer be aware he is still impaired.
This proposal is very misleading and if it passes, it can only be repealed or changed by a super-majority of the legislature or a statewide vote (which would take millions of dollars).
In the last 3 weeks,a coalition of Doctors, Hospitals, Law enforcement and Family groups have come together to oppose this and get the word out. They include:
Michigan State Medical Society,
Michigan Osteopaths,
Michigan Health and Hospital Association,
Michigan Sheriffs,
Prosecuting Attorneys of Michigan,
Michigan Chiefs of Police,
Michigan Fraternal Order of Police,
Citizens for Traditional Values,
Michigan Family Forum and More).
I wanted you to be aware of what’s about to happen in Michigan. There is no campaign staff, there aren’t lots of dollars but we have been aggressively getting information out to the press and in fact the Grand Rapids Press just came out with their editorial on the issue
Mlive.com
WE NEED YOUR HELP TO SPREAD THE WORD.
The biggest need right now is to get lawn signs out which say “Docs and Cops agree NO on 1” with the website www.nopotshops.com
If you would like to help, please email noonproposalone@gmail.com
Proposal 1 was put on our ballot here in Michigan by a group almost entirely funded by the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington D.C.
They spent a couple million dollars to hire petition circulators to get enough signatures to put this on our ballot. They then wrote a 100 word description of the proposal and went to the Michigan Board of Canvassers and were successful in getting pretty much their wording of the issue.
The problem is not what is in the proposal but what isn’t.
Because the law is very vague and full of loopholes,it will not be legalizing marijuana for extreme medical reasons,it will be legalizing marijuana pretty much across the board.
In California where this was done a few years ago, the law is used to allow anyone to get a doctors note and they can grow their own or “designate someone” to grow it for them. This designation of someone else to grow it for you opens the door to “Pot Clubs” which they have in California and they actually outnumber Starbucks in Southern California.
Proponents of Proposal 1 want us to believe that “medical” marijuana will only be smoked by those who have extreme serious medical conditions. Again one only needs to look to California to see who is really being “treated.”
In cities like San Diego where the issue has been closely examined, only 2% of those smoking marijuana under the guise of medicine have serious conditions such as AIDS, glaucoma and cancer. A full 98% are “treating” more minor conditions such as back and neck pain, anxiety, muscle spasms, insomnia, headaches and other insignificant conditions. But even more troubling is that 12% of the users are under 21!
And while this proposal does not require an employer to “accommodate the ingestion of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working under the influence of marijuana,”it does not address what would be required of any employer if an employee tested positive on a drug test during employment.
Supporters of this proposal say it would not allow an individual to be intoxicated while on the job, but no impairment level has ever been established, and drug tests detect the presence of drugs,not impairment. Studies however, indicate the impairment caused by marijuana use can persist as long as 24 hours - even though the user may no longer be aware he is still impaired.
This proposal is very misleading and if it passes, it can only be repealed or changed by a super-majority of the legislature or a statewide vote (which would take millions of dollars).
In the last 3 weeks,a coalition of Doctors, Hospitals, Law enforcement and Family groups have come together to oppose this and get the word out. They include:
Michigan State Medical Society,
Michigan Osteopaths,
Michigan Health and Hospital Association,
Michigan Sheriffs,
Prosecuting Attorneys of Michigan,
Michigan Chiefs of Police,
Michigan Fraternal Order of Police,
Citizens for Traditional Values,
Michigan Family Forum and More).
I wanted you to be aware of what’s about to happen in Michigan. There is no campaign staff, there aren’t lots of dollars but we have been aggressively getting information out to the press and in fact the Grand Rapids Press just came out with their editorial on the issue
Mlive.com
WE NEED YOUR HELP TO SPREAD THE WORD.
The biggest need right now is to get lawn signs out which say “Docs and Cops agree NO on 1” with the website www.nopotshops.com
If you would like to help, please email noonproposalone@gmail.com
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Military Being Disfranchised in Virginia
United Conservative
Fairfax County Virginia Rejection of Military Absentee Ballots
· The Fairfax County Registrar—and possibly other Registrars in Virginia—is rejecting most Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB) cast by our men and women in uniform.
· The FWAB is a federally mandated write-in ballot that allows military servicemembers and their dependents to cast an absentee ballot when they have not received a ballot before the election. It is a safety net that allows a servicemember to vote even if the mail truck hasn't reached his or her remote base in Iraq or Afghanistan in time to cast a regular absentee ballot.
· Why is the Fairfax Registrar rejecting these ballots? The Registrar states that the witness who signs the envelope containing the FWAB must include his or her address—but most of the ballots don't include the witness' address.
· Virginia law does not require a witness address for any other type of absentee ballot. So, for example, a Virginia resident attending college out of state does not need to include her witness' address on her absentee ballot envelope. But the Fairfax County Registrar is holding servicemembers, including those currently defending their country in war zones, to a much more exacting standard, requiring the witnesses who sign their FWABs to include their address.
· To make matters worse, the Federal form (SF-186A) that is used for the FWAB does not have a space for witnesses to include their address. And the Department of Defense's official Voting Assistance Guide, which it provides to servicemembers as an instruction manual for casting votes while overseas, does not tell servicemembers that they must include an address for their witness. The servicemember would thus have no way of knowing of this requirement.
· Federal law does not allow this type of disparate treatment of servicemembers. The Uniform and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (UOCAVA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff-2, requires states to process FWABs "in the manner provided by law for absentee ballots in the State involved." (emphasis added). In other words, the FWAB must be treated like any other absentee ballot under state law and may not be subject to more restrictive requirements. Yet that is precisely what is being done here.
Fairfax County Virginia Rejection of Military Absentee Ballots
· The Fairfax County Registrar—and possibly other Registrars in Virginia—is rejecting most Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB) cast by our men and women in uniform.
· The FWAB is a federally mandated write-in ballot that allows military servicemembers and their dependents to cast an absentee ballot when they have not received a ballot before the election. It is a safety net that allows a servicemember to vote even if the mail truck hasn't reached his or her remote base in Iraq or Afghanistan in time to cast a regular absentee ballot.
· Why is the Fairfax Registrar rejecting these ballots? The Registrar states that the witness who signs the envelope containing the FWAB must include his or her address—but most of the ballots don't include the witness' address.
· Virginia law does not require a witness address for any other type of absentee ballot. So, for example, a Virginia resident attending college out of state does not need to include her witness' address on her absentee ballot envelope. But the Fairfax County Registrar is holding servicemembers, including those currently defending their country in war zones, to a much more exacting standard, requiring the witnesses who sign their FWABs to include their address.
· To make matters worse, the Federal form (SF-186A) that is used for the FWAB does not have a space for witnesses to include their address. And the Department of Defense's official Voting Assistance Guide, which it provides to servicemembers as an instruction manual for casting votes while overseas, does not tell servicemembers that they must include an address for their witness. The servicemember would thus have no way of knowing of this requirement.
· Federal law does not allow this type of disparate treatment of servicemembers. The Uniform and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (UOCAVA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff-2, requires states to process FWABs "in the manner provided by law for absentee ballots in the State involved." (emphasis added). In other words, the FWAB must be treated like any other absentee ballot under state law and may not be subject to more restrictive requirements. Yet that is precisely what is being done here.
Please take action to put some heat on those who can make a difference. PLEASE, no matter what your politics this is OUTRAGEOUS. Please email, phone, do both to the following people.
Rokey W. Suleman, II
General Registrar Fairfax County, VA Electoral Board
voting@fairfaxcounty.gov
703.222.0776 TTY 711
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT
New York Post
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON
October 20, 2008
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.
The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.
Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show.
Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones. Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?
For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.
Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.
Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.
He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.
Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.
Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON
October 20, 2008
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.
The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.
Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show.
Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones. Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?
For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.
Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.
Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.
He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.
Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.
Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.
Right on, right on, right on Sarah!!!
Boston.com
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor
October 21, 2008 12:56 PM
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin added more detail today to the GOP critique of Barack Obama using his running mate's prediction that a President Obama would be tested by an international crisis.
"Did you hear what Senator Biden said at a fundraiser on Sunday?" Palin asked supporters in Reno, Nev. "
He guaranteed that if Barack Obama is elected, we’ll face an international crisis within the first six months of their administration. He told Democrat donors to mark his words – that there were 'at least four or five scenarios' that would place our country at risk in an Obama administration. I guess we've got to say, 'Thanks for the warning, Joe!' "
"He didn’t specify what all those four or five scenarios will be, but for clues, let’s review the Obama foreign policy agenda," she said, not mentioning that Biden also said that Obama would pass those tests.
She cited Obama's pledge to meet with rogue leaders without preconditions, though he has softened that vow. "Let’s call that crisis scenario number one," Palin said.
She also mentioned Obama saying he would go into the tribal areas of Pakistan to go after Osama bin Laden if the Pakistani government wouldn't. "Invading the sovereign territory of a troubled partner in the war against terrorism," Palin said. "We’ll call that scenario number two."
She noted that Obama initially opposed the surge of additional US troops to Iraq last year, and argued that his plan for withdrawing combat troops within 16 months of taking office would leave "some 25 million Iraqis at the mercy of Iranian-supported Shiite extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq. By his own admission, this could mean our troops would have to go back to Iraq. Crisis scenario number three."
Palin asserted that after the Russian invasion of Georgia in August, "Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine next. That would be crisis scenario number four.
"But I guess the looming crisis that most worries the Obama campaign right now is Joe Biden’s next speaking engagement. Let’s call that crisis number five," she said as supporters guffawed.Palin then reminded the crowd that during the Democratic primaries last year, Biden said Obama wasn't ready to be commander-in-chief -- though he has obviously changed his mind about that -- and had praised McCain.
"And here we have some common ground," she said. "I want a president who spent 22 years in uniform defending our country, always putting his country first, fighting for you. I want a president who isn’t afraid to use the word 'victory' when he talks about the wars America is fighting. I do want a president who’s ready on day one.
I want a president with the experience and the judgment and the wisdom and the truthfullness to meet the next international crisis – or better yet to avoid it. I do want John McCain as our next commander-in-chief."
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor
October 21, 2008 12:56 PM
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin added more detail today to the GOP critique of Barack Obama using his running mate's prediction that a President Obama would be tested by an international crisis.
"Did you hear what Senator Biden said at a fundraiser on Sunday?" Palin asked supporters in Reno, Nev. "
He guaranteed that if Barack Obama is elected, we’ll face an international crisis within the first six months of their administration. He told Democrat donors to mark his words – that there were 'at least four or five scenarios' that would place our country at risk in an Obama administration. I guess we've got to say, 'Thanks for the warning, Joe!' "
"He didn’t specify what all those four or five scenarios will be, but for clues, let’s review the Obama foreign policy agenda," she said, not mentioning that Biden also said that Obama would pass those tests.
She cited Obama's pledge to meet with rogue leaders without preconditions, though he has softened that vow. "Let’s call that crisis scenario number one," Palin said.
She also mentioned Obama saying he would go into the tribal areas of Pakistan to go after Osama bin Laden if the Pakistani government wouldn't. "Invading the sovereign territory of a troubled partner in the war against terrorism," Palin said. "We’ll call that scenario number two."
She noted that Obama initially opposed the surge of additional US troops to Iraq last year, and argued that his plan for withdrawing combat troops within 16 months of taking office would leave "some 25 million Iraqis at the mercy of Iranian-supported Shiite extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq. By his own admission, this could mean our troops would have to go back to Iraq. Crisis scenario number three."
Palin asserted that after the Russian invasion of Georgia in August, "Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine next. That would be crisis scenario number four.
"But I guess the looming crisis that most worries the Obama campaign right now is Joe Biden’s next speaking engagement. Let’s call that crisis number five," she said as supporters guffawed.Palin then reminded the crowd that during the Democratic primaries last year, Biden said Obama wasn't ready to be commander-in-chief -- though he has obviously changed his mind about that -- and had praised McCain.
"And here we have some common ground," she said. "I want a president who spent 22 years in uniform defending our country, always putting his country first, fighting for you. I want a president who isn’t afraid to use the word 'victory' when he talks about the wars America is fighting. I do want a president who’s ready on day one.
I want a president with the experience and the judgment and the wisdom and the truthfullness to meet the next international crisis – or better yet to avoid it. I do want John McCain as our next commander-in-chief."
Monday, October 20, 2008
Our Country Deserves Better in Michigan
Hello everyone -- Joe Wierzbicki of the Our Country Deserves Better Committee here. I wanted to let you know that I've confirmed with our media buyers that our television ad campaign to defeat Barack Obama in Michigan officially begins TODAY (Monday, October in Michigan. (You can see some of the ads we are running here: http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/ads/index.html )
The ad buy will be several hundred thousand dollars - and could go even higher. We are working very hard to secure as much funding as possible for this campaign to "Save Michigan" from falling into the Obama column on Election Day.
The ads we are placing begin running today in the Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. In the next day or two the ads will also start running throughout the rest of the Lower Peninsula as well.
NINE PRO-McCAIN/PALIN RALLIES TO COME LATER THIS WEEK!
In conjunction with our TV ad campaign, we will also be bringing our "Stop Obama Tour" to Michigan, crossing both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas from this Thursday - Saturday. We'll conduct NINE rallies supporting the McCain/Palin ticket throughout the state, and we really need your help to get the word out and help us generate nice big crowds for these events... we're going to get as much media coverage for this effort as possible.
We've got a lot of work to do here in Michigan, but victory is still within our reach. With the decision by the Obama campaign to pull staff and dollars out of Michigan (we don't know how much, because they wisely won't admit to the extent of their retreat), we have a window of opportunity to turn the race around in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket.
Here is the information on our upcoming rallies in Michigan: http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/nationaltour/index.html
Please, I can't underscore enough how important it is for you to help us get the word out to all the GOP and conservative activists in the state. Please call our pro-McCain talk radio hosts and get them to help out in this effort.
Now let's go fight the good fight and win this state for Senator McCain and Governor Palin!
- Joe Wierzbicki, Our Country Deserves Better Committee
My Email: jwierzbicki@rmrwest.com
P.S. I grew up here in Michigan, born in Livonia. My family lived in Novi before moving to Brighton where I attended Hornung Elementary and Maltby Middle School. My family then moved to California, but my sister stayed back to graduate from Michigan State University (a rivalry we joked about since I was always a U of M Wolverines fan!). The Chairman of the Our Country Deserves Better Committee, Howard Kaloogian, is also a Michigan native and he still works with Hillsdale College. Our committee is determined to do all we can to turn this state "red" on November 4th, and we look forward to working with you hand-in-hand
Change Means Never Having To Face Facts
Investors Business Daily
By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, but also resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short. "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.
When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Obama.
Some of Sen. Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.
The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change." But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.
In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."
That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.
Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even worse than what went before.
Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.
These ranged from Jim Jones, who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown, to Hitler and Mao, who led millions to their deaths.
What specifics do we know about Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?
We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.
We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.
Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of "change."
The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to.
For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him.
By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted Monday, October 20, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by the facts, but also resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short. "You don't like him and I do!" she said. End of discussion.
When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
Of the four people running for president and vice president on the Republican and Democratic tickets, the one we know the least about is the one leading in the polls — Obama.
Some of Sen. Obama's most fervent supporters could not tell you what he has actually done on such issues as crime, education or financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, much less what he plans to do to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear nation supplying nuclear weapons to the international terrorist networks that it has supplied with other weapons.
The magic word "change" makes specifics unnecessary. If things are going bad, some think that what is needed is blank-check "change." But history shows any number of countries in crises worse than ours, where "change" turned problems into catastrophes.
In czarist Russia, for example, the economy was worse than ours is today and the First World War was going far worse for the Russians than anything we have faced in Iraq. Moreover, Russians had nothing like the rights of Americans today. So they went for "change."
That "change" brought on a totalitarian regime that made the czars' despotism look like child's play. The communists killed more people in one year than the czars killed in more than 90 years, not counting the millions who died in a government-created famine in the 1930s.
Other despotic regimes in China, Cuba and Iran were similarly replaced by people who promised "change" that turned out to be even worse than what went before.
Yet many today seem to assume that if things are bad, "change" will make them better. Specifics don't interest them nearly as much as inspiring rhetoric and a confident style. But many 20th-century leaders with inspiring rhetoric and great self-confidence led their followers or their countries into utter disasters.
These ranged from Jim Jones, who led hundreds to their deaths in Jonestown, to Hitler and Mao, who led millions to their deaths.
What specifics do we know about Obama's track record that might give us some clue as to what kinds of "changes" to expect if he is elected?
We know that he opposed the practice of putting violent young felons on trial as adults. We know that he was against a law forbidding physicians to kill a baby that was born alive despite an attempt to abort it.
We know that Obama opposed attempts to put stricter regulations on Fannie Mae — and that he was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. We know that this very year his campaign sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines.
Fannie Mae and Raines were at the heart of "the mess in Washington" that Barack Obama claims he is going to clean up under the banner of "change."
The public has been told very little about what this man with the wonderful rhetoric has actually done. What we know is enough to make us wonder about what we don't know. Or it ought to.
For the true believers — which includes many in the media — it is just a question of whether you like him.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sarah Smile
Albuquerque, New Mexico Our County Deserves Better Rally supporting the McCain/Palin campaign -part of our national, cross-country "Stop Obama Tour."
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
ACORN IN MI
Mlive.com
10/14/2008, 5:52 p.m. ET
Mich. AG charges ex-ACORN worker with forgery
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan's attorney general is charging a former employee of a community organizing group with forgery after he says the man falsely submitted six voter registration forms.
Antonio Johnson is being held in Jackson County on a parole violation. The 23-year-old is accused of falsifying the registration forms between May 20 and June 6 in Jackson.
He worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Jackson Clerk Lynn Fessel suspected a problem and asked police to investigate. Two residents said they didn't sign the forms and that some information used to complete the forms was incorrect.
Attorney General Mike Cox announced Johnson's arrest Tuesday. Johnson couldn't be reached immediately at the jail.
Another story from The Detroit Free Press
October 15, 2008
ACORN leader: Bogus voter applications get through
BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
LANSING -- The head of a group that promotes voter registration acknowledged Tuesday that members of his organization have submitted bogus applications to county election offices.
But David Lagstein, head Michigan organizer for ACORN, the Association for Community Reforms Now, defended the effort.
"It's our policy to hand in every single card," he said. "Sometimes we do get the occasional application with names like Mickey Mouse or some silly thing like that. However, we don't want to be the arbiter. Our job is to hand in the applications."
Lagstein's comments followed charges of falsifying voter registration documents filed Tuesday against an ex-ACORN worker from Jackson.
Antonio Johnson was charged with six counts of forgery of a public document, felonies each carrying a sentence of up to 14 years in prison, Attorney General Mike Cox said.
Cox said the documents submitted by Johnson were obvious forgeries, and that his "office will not stand by while criminals interfere with the voting rights of citizens."
Johnson has been convicted in the past of drunken driving and drug offenses and was in jail on a parole violation charge when the alleged forgeries were found.
Staff writer Joe Rossiter contributed to this report.
Walberg Campaign Intends Legal Action Against ACORN and Moveon.org Front Group
Press Release
Radical Liberal Group Supporting Mark Schauer is Using a Cancer Victim to Falsely Attack Congressman Walberg in a TV ad
Jackson, MI- A radical liberal group supporting Mark Schauer and funded by the voter fraud organization ACORN, radical left-wing Moveon.org, and the pro-illegal immigration National Council of La Raza is running a TV ad featuring a cancer victim attacking Congressman Walberg. However, the accusation made in the ad is untrue, and the Walberg campaign is intending legal action.
In the TV ad, the woman with cancer states:
"Republican Congressman Tim Walberg sponsored legislation that would let insurance companies make the rules. They could even deny coverage for preexisting conditions like cancer."
Facts:
· The bill cited in the TV ad gives consumers the option to purchase health insurance from other states. It has nothing to do with restricting health insurance for cancer victims; it simply lets consumers have more options when shopping for health insurance. [National Center for Policy Analysis, Congressman John Shaddegg, Congressional Research Service]
· The claim in the ad that the bill "would let insurance companies make the rules" is untrue. According to the Congressional Research Service and National Center for Policy Analysis, the insurance policies would be regulated by state and federal laws.
· According to a study by University of Minnesota economists presented at the American Enterprise Institute, if this legislation were to become law, 12 million more Americans would be able to afford health insurance.
"Congressman Walberg supports this health care reform because it will allow 12 million more Americans to afford health insurance. For radical liberal organizations supporting Mark Schauer to use a cancer victim to falsely attack Congressman Walberg is despicable and we are intending legal action," said Justin Roebuck, campaign manager.
10/14/2008, 5:52 p.m. ET
Mich. AG charges ex-ACORN worker with forgery
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan's attorney general is charging a former employee of a community organizing group with forgery after he says the man falsely submitted six voter registration forms.
Antonio Johnson is being held in Jackson County on a parole violation. The 23-year-old is accused of falsifying the registration forms between May 20 and June 6 in Jackson.
He worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Jackson Clerk Lynn Fessel suspected a problem and asked police to investigate. Two residents said they didn't sign the forms and that some information used to complete the forms was incorrect.
Attorney General Mike Cox announced Johnson's arrest Tuesday. Johnson couldn't be reached immediately at the jail.
Another story from The Detroit Free Press
October 15, 2008
ACORN leader: Bogus voter applications get through
BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
LANSING -- The head of a group that promotes voter registration acknowledged Tuesday that members of his organization have submitted bogus applications to county election offices.
But David Lagstein, head Michigan organizer for ACORN, the Association for Community Reforms Now, defended the effort.
"It's our policy to hand in every single card," he said. "Sometimes we do get the occasional application with names like Mickey Mouse or some silly thing like that. However, we don't want to be the arbiter. Our job is to hand in the applications."
Lagstein's comments followed charges of falsifying voter registration documents filed Tuesday against an ex-ACORN worker from Jackson.
Antonio Johnson was charged with six counts of forgery of a public document, felonies each carrying a sentence of up to 14 years in prison, Attorney General Mike Cox said.
Cox said the documents submitted by Johnson were obvious forgeries, and that his "office will not stand by while criminals interfere with the voting rights of citizens."
Johnson has been convicted in the past of drunken driving and drug offenses and was in jail on a parole violation charge when the alleged forgeries were found.
Staff writer Joe Rossiter contributed to this report.
Walberg Campaign Intends Legal Action Against ACORN and Moveon.org Front Group
Press Release
Radical Liberal Group Supporting Mark Schauer is Using a Cancer Victim to Falsely Attack Congressman Walberg in a TV ad
Jackson, MI- A radical liberal group supporting Mark Schauer and funded by the voter fraud organization ACORN, radical left-wing Moveon.org, and the pro-illegal immigration National Council of La Raza is running a TV ad featuring a cancer victim attacking Congressman Walberg. However, the accusation made in the ad is untrue, and the Walberg campaign is intending legal action.
In the TV ad, the woman with cancer states:
"Republican Congressman Tim Walberg sponsored legislation that would let insurance companies make the rules. They could even deny coverage for preexisting conditions like cancer."
Facts:
· The bill cited in the TV ad gives consumers the option to purchase health insurance from other states. It has nothing to do with restricting health insurance for cancer victims; it simply lets consumers have more options when shopping for health insurance. [National Center for Policy Analysis, Congressman John Shaddegg, Congressional Research Service]
· The claim in the ad that the bill "would let insurance companies make the rules" is untrue. According to the Congressional Research Service and National Center for Policy Analysis, the insurance policies would be regulated by state and federal laws.
· According to a study by University of Minnesota economists presented at the American Enterprise Institute, if this legislation were to become law, 12 million more Americans would be able to afford health insurance.
"Congressman Walberg supports this health care reform because it will allow 12 million more Americans to afford health insurance. For radical liberal organizations supporting Mark Schauer to use a cancer victim to falsely attack Congressman Walberg is despicable and we are intending legal action," said Justin Roebuck, campaign manager.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
School takes 1st-graders to see lesbian teacher wed
'This is an overt indoctrination of children who are too young'
WorldNetDaily
Posted: October 11, 2008
7:30 pm Eastern
A public school in San Francisco bused 18 first-graders to City Hall yesterday, so the youngsters could scatter rose petals in celebration of their lesbian teacher's wedding.
The students, from Creative Arts Charter School, waited on the steps for their teacher with bags of pink rose petals, bottles of bubbles and, at least for some, with political buttons asking Californians to vote down Proposition 8, a ballot measure that seeks to define marriage in the state as a union between one man and one woman.
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt told the San Francisco Chronicle, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
As WND reported, supporters of California's Proposition 8 have claimed that combining legalized same-sex marriage with the state's mandate that schools "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships" would result in kindergartners being taught the virtues of homosexual marriage. Opponents have called such arguments fabrications and scare tactics.
Yesterday's field trip wasn't quite kindergartners, but it was close.
"It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," White told the Chronicle. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
The school's interim director Liz Jaroflow, however, defended the field trip to a homosexual wedding as academically justifiable.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," she told the Chronicle. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Jaroflow also told the Chronicle that despite the potential objections of some the decision was not controversial for her, and that "it's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
According to the Chronicle, the field trip was a surprise to the teacher, Erin Carder, and originally proposed by a parent.
"How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Mark Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."
Carder married Kerri McCoy on the office balcony of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who officiated the ceremony.
As the couple held hands on the balcony overlooking the City Hall's rotunda, Carder proclaimed, "With this ring I thee wed!" shouting the last word for emphasis.
The couple told the Chronicle that they have participated in campaigning against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around the city after the ceremony in a motorized trolley car with banners reading "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8."
Two families of children in the class chose not to give permission for the trip, their children remaining at the school with another first-grade class.
WorldNetDaily
Posted: October 11, 2008
7:30 pm Eastern
A public school in San Francisco bused 18 first-graders to City Hall yesterday, so the youngsters could scatter rose petals in celebration of their lesbian teacher's wedding.
The students, from Creative Arts Charter School, waited on the steps for their teacher with bags of pink rose petals, bottles of bubbles and, at least for some, with political buttons asking Californians to vote down Proposition 8, a ballot measure that seeks to define marriage in the state as a union between one man and one woman.
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt told the San Francisco Chronicle, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
As WND reported, supporters of California's Proposition 8 have claimed that combining legalized same-sex marriage with the state's mandate that schools "teach respect for marriage and committed relationships" would result in kindergartners being taught the virtues of homosexual marriage. Opponents have called such arguments fabrications and scare tactics.
Yesterday's field trip wasn't quite kindergartners, but it was close.
"It shows that not only can it happen, but it has already happened," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," White told the Chronicle. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
The school's interim director Liz Jaroflow, however, defended the field trip to a homosexual wedding as academically justifiable.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," she told the Chronicle. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Jaroflow also told the Chronicle that despite the potential objections of some the decision was not controversial for her, and that "it's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
According to the Chronicle, the field trip was a surprise to the teacher, Erin Carder, and originally proposed by a parent.
"How many days in school are they going to remember?" asked parent Mark Lipsett. "This is a day they'll definitely remember."
Carder married Kerri McCoy on the office balcony of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who officiated the ceremony.
As the couple held hands on the balcony overlooking the City Hall's rotunda, Carder proclaimed, "With this ring I thee wed!" shouting the last word for emphasis.
The couple told the Chronicle that they have participated in campaigning against Proposition 8 and planned to travel around the city after the ceremony in a motorized trolley car with banners reading "Just Married" and "Vote No on 8."
Two families of children in the class chose not to give permission for the trip, their children remaining at the school with another first-grade class.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Obamacorn
Obama at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum
Election '08: Barack Obama lies about his ACORN past while agreeing to let the group shape the policies of his administration. He hopes his community organizer pals will help him make America "less mean-spirited."
As far back as Harvard Law School, Obama dreamed of transforming America in the image of community organizations such as ACORN with whom and for whom he trained.
In the May 3, 1990, edition of Chicago's Daily Herald newspaper, there's an article in which Obama, while attending Harvard Law School, gives his skewed view of American society and his plans for it. "I'm interested in organizations, not movements," the young Obama said, "because movements dissipate but organizations don't."
Through these organizations, Obama hoped that "more and more people will begin to feel their story is somehow part of this larger story of how we're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous."
Less mean-spirited? Apparently wife Michelle isn't the only one who thinks America is mean and should be more generous with other people's money. "I hope to be part of a transformation of this country," Obama also said in 1990.
Of course, Obama denies being a trainer for ACORN and its staff of community rabble-rousers now engaged in massive countrywide vote fraud to elect the man who helped lead their effort to force banks to issue loans to people who could not afford them.
Obama's Web site proclaims, "Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." Then how is it that Chicago ACORN leader Toni Foulkes sang Obama's praises for his work for ACORN in his article, "Case Study: Chicago — The Barack Obama Campaign," which appeared in Social Policy magazine in 2004?
Foulkes said ACORN first recognized Obama's talents as a community organizer when he was organizing on Chicago's far south side with the Developing Communities Project.
Foulkes wrote: "When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act . . . . Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar . . . and we won."
Then Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the new federal "Motor Voter" law out of concern that allowing people to register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud. We wonder where he got that idea.
Foulkes says that "Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Mosely Braun to win the Senate that year. Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them)."
ACORN was so impressed with Obama's work with and for ACORN that, according to Foulkes, "Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office."
Last November, Obama told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran (the) Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."
Obama appreciates ACORN's work so much, and vice versa, that Obama last December promised to implement ACORN's agenda as president. On Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum organized by Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change. When asked if Obama would sit down with community organizers in the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama said, "Yes, but let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we'll be calling all of you (community organizers) in to help us shape the agenda."
Obama pledged before leaders of community organizing groups including Gamaliel and ACORN: "We're gonna be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
That's what we were afraid of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
