Eric Holder Will Decide if You Belong to a Hate Group
By nighttwister
That is, if HR2647 passes. This bill originally passed the House without the Hate Crimes legislation included, but it was added as an amendment in the Senate. The text of the legislation gives the Attorney General, currently Eric H. Holder, Jr., the right to determine if a group is “associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government”. From the legislative text,
(2) DEFINITION OF HATE GROUP.—In this subsection, the terms ‘group associated with hate-related violence’ or ‘hate group’ mean the following:
(A) Groups or organizations that espouse or engage in acts of violence against other groups or minorities based on ideals of hate, ethnic supremacies, white supremacies, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or other bigotry ideologies. [emphasis mine]
It gets worse as we go:
(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature. [emphasis mine]
If you think Tea Party activists and bloggers are safe from this legislation, think again.
(3) EVIDENCE OF ASSOCIATION OR AFFILATION WITH HATE GROUP.—The following shall constitute evidence that a person is associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence:
(A) Individuals possessing tattoos or other body markings indicating association or affiliation with a hate group.
(B) Individuals known to have attended meetings, rallies, conferences, or other activities sponsored by a hate group.
(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group’s extremist or violent views and goals.
(D) Individuals who are known to have in their possession photographs, written testimonials (including diaries or journals), propaganda, or other materials indicating involvement or affiliation with a hate group. Such materials can include photographs, written materials relating to or referring to extreme hatred that are clearly not of an academic nature, possession of objects that venerate or glorify hateinspired violence, and related materials, as determined by the Attorney General. [emphasis mine]
Congress has decided to give the Administration the ability to silence its critics. All that needs to be done is to have the Attorney General define their organization as a hate group. It’s clear that Obama plans to attack his critics. This legislation would appear to be a violation of due process, but with Obama stacking the courts with his appointees, I wouldn’t be surprised if they ruled otherwise.
As if the legislation itself weren’t bad enough, the Congress, in cowardly fashion, has attached it to an urgently needed military spending bill in an effort to force Republicans to vote for it. Once again the progressives in Congress are attempting to sneak something in through the back door. Mike Coffman (R, CO-06) had this to say,
I voted against the NDAA final conference report because of the Democrats’ decision to attach a completely unrelated measure to our defense funding bill.
“I voted against the NDAA final conference report because of the Democrats’ decision to attach a completely unrelated measure to our defense funding bill. The Senate-passed version of the “Hate Crimes” legislation placed in the final conference report will have chilling effects on religious freedoms and free speech. I strongly oppose including the measure in a bill that is designed to provide resources for our soldiers whose job it is to protect the very freedoms this provision will erode.”
The 111th Congress to give this Administration more and more power. Unless their intent is to create a North American Hugo Chavez, they should reconsider their current strategy. If they don’t, they could end up being even less significant than they currently are.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Global-Warming Judicial Activism
Global-Warming Judicial Activism
By Thomas Brewton
Congress and the Copenhagen convocation having failed to impose draconian measures to please advocates of man-made global warming, liberal-progressives are reverting to the courts for an end-run around the will of the people.
Liberal-progressives have been thwarted by the world’s growing awareness (1) that the threat of man-made global warming is a fraudulent scam, and (2) that the economic costs of action demanded by secular religious fanatics are staggeringly high and far beyond any reasonable cost-benefit ratio. In a desperate attempt to impose the one-world-government vision of a small band of “scientists,” liberal-progressives are now turning to judicial activism.
Judicial activism is an innovation developed by the ACLU’s Roger Baldwin in the 1920s, originally for a somewhat different purpose. Working through the Harvard Law School, Baldwin promoted a radically new interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The intent was to manipulate the Constitution to make it destroy itself.
A constitution is intended to reflect the most fundamental values of a society, to embody that society’s moral principles. The ACLU’s game plan was to change public perception of the Constitution as a protection of individuals’ rights against arbitrary government power and majority sentiment into a license for radical subversives to do anything they wished to undermine the Constitution.
In every generation when concerned citizens denounced the liberal jihad, liberal-progressive-socialists have skillfully used propaganda to make objections look like efforts to stop the right of free speech. Liberals called it Red-Baiting in the 1920s, Black-Listing in the 1940s, and McCarthyism in the 1950s. In today’s global-warming hysteria, with consummate PR skill liberal-progressives label questions and objections as scientific ignorance, despite the evidence that the basis for their religious faith in man-made global warming is a body of manipulated, distorted, and cherry-picked data.
Public outrage in the 1920s was no more unwarranted than today’s growing outcry against global-warming hype. In the 1920s, the public had been battered by waves of bombings and assassination attempts by anarcho-socialists after World War I. Most notoriously, in 1920, liberal activists planted dynamite in a wagon outside the Wall Street headquarters of J. P. Morgan, timed to detonate shortly after noon, in order to kill the maximum possible number of people on the street for lunch hour. With shrapnel tearing through the packed sidewalk crowds, 38 people were killed and some 300 wounded.
Such atrocities, along with secular religious belief in man-made global warming, are what liberal-progressives proudly regard as their efforts to perfect humanity.
By Thomas Brewton
Congress and the Copenhagen convocation having failed to impose draconian measures to please advocates of man-made global warming, liberal-progressives are reverting to the courts for an end-run around the will of the people.
Liberal-progressives have been thwarted by the world’s growing awareness (1) that the threat of man-made global warming is a fraudulent scam, and (2) that the economic costs of action demanded by secular religious fanatics are staggeringly high and far beyond any reasonable cost-benefit ratio. In a desperate attempt to impose the one-world-government vision of a small band of “scientists,” liberal-progressives are now turning to judicial activism.
Judicial activism is an innovation developed by the ACLU’s Roger Baldwin in the 1920s, originally for a somewhat different purpose. Working through the Harvard Law School, Baldwin promoted a radically new interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The intent was to manipulate the Constitution to make it destroy itself.
A constitution is intended to reflect the most fundamental values of a society, to embody that society’s moral principles. The ACLU’s game plan was to change public perception of the Constitution as a protection of individuals’ rights against arbitrary government power and majority sentiment into a license for radical subversives to do anything they wished to undermine the Constitution.
In every generation when concerned citizens denounced the liberal jihad, liberal-progressive-socialists have skillfully used propaganda to make objections look like efforts to stop the right of free speech. Liberals called it Red-Baiting in the 1920s, Black-Listing in the 1940s, and McCarthyism in the 1950s. In today’s global-warming hysteria, with consummate PR skill liberal-progressives label questions and objections as scientific ignorance, despite the evidence that the basis for their religious faith in man-made global warming is a body of manipulated, distorted, and cherry-picked data.
Public outrage in the 1920s was no more unwarranted than today’s growing outcry against global-warming hype. In the 1920s, the public had been battered by waves of bombings and assassination attempts by anarcho-socialists after World War I. Most notoriously, in 1920, liberal activists planted dynamite in a wagon outside the Wall Street headquarters of J. P. Morgan, timed to detonate shortly after noon, in order to kill the maximum possible number of people on the street for lunch hour. With shrapnel tearing through the packed sidewalk crowds, 38 people were killed and some 300 wounded.
Such atrocities, along with secular religious belief in man-made global warming, are what liberal-progressives proudly regard as their efforts to perfect humanity.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Twelve Anti-Family Gifts from Congress
Twelve Anti-Family Gifts from Congress
As Congress wraps up its final business for the year, there are at least a dozen detrimental policies included in the omnibus spending bill recently signed into law by the President. Taken as a whole, these policies devalue human life, weaken civil society, and undermine the family. Unfortunately, these provisions have largely gone unnoticed by the general public.
The Dirty Dozen
The Fiscal Year 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed by Congress includes a slew of offensive items:
1. Elimination of abstinence education. Despite polling showing the vast majority of parents want their children to be taught that abstinence is best, the omnibus defunds the abstinence-based education program. In its place Congress creates another condom-based sex education program.
2. Spreading the wealth. The omnibus bill, as well as the other appropriation measures that have passed this year, represent a fulfillment of President Obama’s promise to “spread the wealth.” His 2010 budget reflects a 30 percent increase over President Bush’s last year in office on means-tested welfare programs such as housing, food stamps, and health care. Unfortunately, these programs do little or nothing to help recipients move off of the welfare rolls and into jobs where they can achieve independence and provide for their families.
3. Needle exchange. Tucked into the health portion of the bill is an allowance of federal taxpayer funds to be used for needle exchange programs whereby drug addicts can get new needles for turning in used needles. Ostensibly to prevent the spread of infection, these programs settle for “harm reduction” rather than overcoming drug addiction. The provision does allow local health agencies and local law enforcement to “opt-out.”
4. Planned Parenthood funding. Despite the country’s towering deficit, the omnibus bill boosts Title X family planning funding by $10 million to $315.5 million. The largest recipient of Title X funds is Planned Parenthood.
5. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Despite its stated mission to “ensure that every pregnancy is wanted,” the UNFPA would receive $5 million more from U.S. taxpayers to, among other things, support China’s mandatory one-child policy, under which millions of wanted pregnancies have been ended.
6. International family planning. Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama rescinded the “Mexico City policy,” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortion overseas. The omnibus bills would give these groups an additional $103 million.
7. Limiting free speech. The omnibus bill drops a ban on federal funds being used to enforce or implement the “Fairness Doctrine.” This policy would have the effect of shutting down conservative talk radio programs.
The section of the bill that funds the District of Columbia includes these disturbing provisions:
8. Ending the D.C. Scholarship Program. For five years, thousands of D.C. families have been able to send their children to safe and effective private schools. But the omnibus bill allows no new entrants into the program–despite a 2009 Department of Education report showing a statistically significant increase in reading scores for scholarship students.
9. Public funding of abortion. The bill lifts a ban on D.C. using local funds to promote and fund abortions for District residents.
10. Taxpayer-financed domestic partner benefits. The bill lifts a longstanding ban on the use of federal taxpayer funds to pay for health care benefits for domestic partners of D.C. employees. Federal funds would also now be used for domestic partnership registration.
11. Legalized medical marijuana. The bill gives D.C. the ability to use local funds to start and implement a medical marijuana program. This comes at a time when, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles is attempting to reel in its program. Medical marijuana dispensaries have become one of the fastest-growing industries in the city, with some 1,000 dispensaries cropping up since 2004.
12. Needle exchange for drug abusers. A decade-long ban is lifted in the bill to allow D.C. to use local funds to run a needle exchange program for drug addicts. Unfortunately, a provision keeping these programs from within 1,000 feet of any school, day care, or youth center was stripped out in the final bill.
Unwelcome Christmas Gifts
The Christmas season is a time when Americans celebrate life, family, and community. Unfortunately, the 12 unwelcome Christmas gifts in the omnibus bill, signed into law by President Obama last week, undermine these pillars of American civil society.
As Congress wraps up its final business for the year, there are at least a dozen detrimental policies included in the omnibus spending bill recently signed into law by the President. Taken as a whole, these policies devalue human life, weaken civil society, and undermine the family. Unfortunately, these provisions have largely gone unnoticed by the general public.
The Dirty Dozen
The Fiscal Year 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed by Congress includes a slew of offensive items:
1. Elimination of abstinence education. Despite polling showing the vast majority of parents want their children to be taught that abstinence is best, the omnibus defunds the abstinence-based education program. In its place Congress creates another condom-based sex education program.
2. Spreading the wealth. The omnibus bill, as well as the other appropriation measures that have passed this year, represent a fulfillment of President Obama’s promise to “spread the wealth.” His 2010 budget reflects a 30 percent increase over President Bush’s last year in office on means-tested welfare programs such as housing, food stamps, and health care. Unfortunately, these programs do little or nothing to help recipients move off of the welfare rolls and into jobs where they can achieve independence and provide for their families.
3. Needle exchange. Tucked into the health portion of the bill is an allowance of federal taxpayer funds to be used for needle exchange programs whereby drug addicts can get new needles for turning in used needles. Ostensibly to prevent the spread of infection, these programs settle for “harm reduction” rather than overcoming drug addiction. The provision does allow local health agencies and local law enforcement to “opt-out.”
4. Planned Parenthood funding. Despite the country’s towering deficit, the omnibus bill boosts Title X family planning funding by $10 million to $315.5 million. The largest recipient of Title X funds is Planned Parenthood.
5. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Despite its stated mission to “ensure that every pregnancy is wanted,” the UNFPA would receive $5 million more from U.S. taxpayers to, among other things, support China’s mandatory one-child policy, under which millions of wanted pregnancies have been ended.
6. International family planning. Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama rescinded the “Mexico City policy,” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortion overseas. The omnibus bills would give these groups an additional $103 million.
7. Limiting free speech. The omnibus bill drops a ban on federal funds being used to enforce or implement the “Fairness Doctrine.” This policy would have the effect of shutting down conservative talk radio programs.
The section of the bill that funds the District of Columbia includes these disturbing provisions:
8. Ending the D.C. Scholarship Program. For five years, thousands of D.C. families have been able to send their children to safe and effective private schools. But the omnibus bill allows no new entrants into the program–despite a 2009 Department of Education report showing a statistically significant increase in reading scores for scholarship students.
9. Public funding of abortion. The bill lifts a ban on D.C. using local funds to promote and fund abortions for District residents.
10. Taxpayer-financed domestic partner benefits. The bill lifts a longstanding ban on the use of federal taxpayer funds to pay for health care benefits for domestic partners of D.C. employees. Federal funds would also now be used for domestic partnership registration.
11. Legalized medical marijuana. The bill gives D.C. the ability to use local funds to start and implement a medical marijuana program. This comes at a time when, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles is attempting to reel in its program. Medical marijuana dispensaries have become one of the fastest-growing industries in the city, with some 1,000 dispensaries cropping up since 2004.
12. Needle exchange for drug abusers. A decade-long ban is lifted in the bill to allow D.C. to use local funds to run a needle exchange program for drug addicts. Unfortunately, a provision keeping these programs from within 1,000 feet of any school, day care, or youth center was stripped out in the final bill.
Unwelcome Christmas Gifts
The Christmas season is a time when Americans celebrate life, family, and community. Unfortunately, the 12 unwelcome Christmas gifts in the omnibus bill, signed into law by President Obama last week, undermine these pillars of American civil society.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Office of Personnel and Management - Slavery
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid of Obama's Latest Big Brother Plan
By Bradley Blakeman
Why the White House and Democrats' plans to expand the Office of Personnel Management should scare all Americans.
The Obama administration seeks to empower a very powerful government agency you have probably never heard of with new and expanded powers that will have a direct consequence on every American if they are successful in their efforts to implement national health care reforms.
The Obama White House is also drunk with power and is seeking to expand the powers of government agencies to oversee and act out to affect Americans in ways that this country has never seen before.
What is the Office of Personnel and Management and why should you care?
The Office of Personnel Management, (OPM), is suppose to be an independent government agency that is charged with managing the civil service system of the federal government. If you are a federal employee then civil service laws, rules and regulations that are managed by OPM govern you. One of the main charges of OPM is to administer and oversee federal health care provided to all federal employees.
The Director of OPM is appointed directly by the president and confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. The current director of OPM is a fellow by the name of John Berry who, before becoming OPM director this past year, was director of the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. -- You cannot make this stuff up.
Under the Democrats' national health care scheme not only would OPM be charged with overseeing and administering federal employees health care but they will have the added charge of administering civilian federal health care as well. What does that mean? Basically, that Americans will be treated as “civil servants.” Are you starting to see the danger?
The more government seeks to control our lives the more Orwellian it gets. This “big brother” mentality that "government knows best" and that it is their mission to provide cradle to grave “care” of its citizens will doom America as we know it. Under such a system the individual becomes meaningless and the state becomes the entity upon which we are all forced to rely.
Most recently OPM made news when the Obama administration sought to use it as a tool upon which to consolidate power.
Under orders from the White House, it is being reported that OPM is on a mission to rid the executive branch bureaucracy of Bush-era personnel who are no longer political appointees and who have lawfully become civil servants.
It is not uncommon for some presidential political appointees to have the opportunity to become civil servants within the federal bureaucracy when they meet all the criteria for a federal civil service job.-- Ordinarily, a political appointee serves "at the pleasure of the president" who originally appointed that person to a particular position. When the president’s term is up their job is up as well. But, when a political appointee becomes a civil servant they are considered full- time government employees and are subject to the rules and regulations governing all other federal employees. Civil service jobs are seen a non-political jobs and are not based on appointment. They are based on merit. Their employment continues until they retire, quit, or are removed from their position for cause. It should never be permissible to remove a civil servant based solely on their political affiliation.
The Obama administration has now ordered a purging of Republicans from federal government civil service.
The Office of Federal Personnel Management, (OPM), has become the “henchman” of the Obama administration. Following orders they have issued new rules -- going back five years --wherein every employee hired, who previously had been a political appointee, will be terminated regardless of cause or poor performance.
It is clear what the intent of the Obama administration is by looking at the following statement made by John Berry the Director of OPM:
Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decision-making authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.
The memorandum specifically applies this change to all political appointees hired in the past 5 years and effectively works to freeze them out of their current jobs or make their lives so miserable by denying promotions, that they will quit before they are forced out.
It is outrageous that the Obama administration would politicize what is supposed to be a independent government agency and would become so vindictive and cold in their exercise of raw political power that they would take steps to eliminate people from their legitimate government employment, based solely on their political pedigree and not their job performance.
I served in the White House during the presidency of George W. Bush. When he took office, we knew that a fair amount of Clinton appointees were making the transition from political appointment positions to civil service positions and nothing was done to “root them out”. They were entitled to remain in their positions and were held to the same standard of job performance as any other civil service employee.
There is nothing worse than abuse of government power. It erodes the very fabric of our laws and respect for government institutions.
For an incoming administration to make a "witch hunt" one of its top priorities and to attempt to fire civil servants who they believe are Republican “sympathizers” is something you might have expected in the former Soviet Union or from the KGB. But it's not something we expected to see in the United States led by the White House.
The expanded “portfolio” of OPM should worry all Americans. This little known agency will make the IRS look down right friendly if the Obama administration is successful in expanding their duties, powers and responsibilities.
By Bradley Blakeman
Why the White House and Democrats' plans to expand the Office of Personnel Management should scare all Americans.
The Obama administration seeks to empower a very powerful government agency you have probably never heard of with new and expanded powers that will have a direct consequence on every American if they are successful in their efforts to implement national health care reforms.
The Obama White House is also drunk with power and is seeking to expand the powers of government agencies to oversee and act out to affect Americans in ways that this country has never seen before.
What is the Office of Personnel and Management and why should you care?
The Office of Personnel Management, (OPM), is suppose to be an independent government agency that is charged with managing the civil service system of the federal government. If you are a federal employee then civil service laws, rules and regulations that are managed by OPM govern you. One of the main charges of OPM is to administer and oversee federal health care provided to all federal employees.
The Director of OPM is appointed directly by the president and confirmed by the Democratically controlled Senate. The current director of OPM is a fellow by the name of John Berry who, before becoming OPM director this past year, was director of the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. -- You cannot make this stuff up.
Under the Democrats' national health care scheme not only would OPM be charged with overseeing and administering federal employees health care but they will have the added charge of administering civilian federal health care as well. What does that mean? Basically, that Americans will be treated as “civil servants.” Are you starting to see the danger?
The more government seeks to control our lives the more Orwellian it gets. This “big brother” mentality that "government knows best" and that it is their mission to provide cradle to grave “care” of its citizens will doom America as we know it. Under such a system the individual becomes meaningless and the state becomes the entity upon which we are all forced to rely.
Most recently OPM made news when the Obama administration sought to use it as a tool upon which to consolidate power.
Under orders from the White House, it is being reported that OPM is on a mission to rid the executive branch bureaucracy of Bush-era personnel who are no longer political appointees and who have lawfully become civil servants.
It is not uncommon for some presidential political appointees to have the opportunity to become civil servants within the federal bureaucracy when they meet all the criteria for a federal civil service job.-- Ordinarily, a political appointee serves "at the pleasure of the president" who originally appointed that person to a particular position. When the president’s term is up their job is up as well. But, when a political appointee becomes a civil servant they are considered full- time government employees and are subject to the rules and regulations governing all other federal employees. Civil service jobs are seen a non-political jobs and are not based on appointment. They are based on merit. Their employment continues until they retire, quit, or are removed from their position for cause. It should never be permissible to remove a civil servant based solely on their political affiliation.
The Obama administration has now ordered a purging of Republicans from federal government civil service.
The Office of Federal Personnel Management, (OPM), has become the “henchman” of the Obama administration. Following orders they have issued new rules -- going back five years --wherein every employee hired, who previously had been a political appointee, will be terminated regardless of cause or poor performance.
It is clear what the intent of the Obama administration is by looking at the following statement made by John Berry the Director of OPM:
Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decision-making authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.
The memorandum specifically applies this change to all political appointees hired in the past 5 years and effectively works to freeze them out of their current jobs or make their lives so miserable by denying promotions, that they will quit before they are forced out.
It is outrageous that the Obama administration would politicize what is supposed to be a independent government agency and would become so vindictive and cold in their exercise of raw political power that they would take steps to eliminate people from their legitimate government employment, based solely on their political pedigree and not their job performance.
I served in the White House during the presidency of George W. Bush. When he took office, we knew that a fair amount of Clinton appointees were making the transition from political appointment positions to civil service positions and nothing was done to “root them out”. They were entitled to remain in their positions and were held to the same standard of job performance as any other civil service employee.
There is nothing worse than abuse of government power. It erodes the very fabric of our laws and respect for government institutions.
For an incoming administration to make a "witch hunt" one of its top priorities and to attempt to fire civil servants who they believe are Republican “sympathizers” is something you might have expected in the former Soviet Union or from the KGB. But it's not something we expected to see in the United States led by the White House.
The expanded “portfolio” of OPM should worry all Americans. This little known agency will make the IRS look down right friendly if the Obama administration is successful in expanding their duties, powers and responsibilities.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Obama Spearheaded Effort Forcing Bad Loans
Obama was part of the movement to force banks to make high risk loans but he now blames them!
by Steve Baldwin
This week we saw Obama on all the news shows blaming banks for the credit crisis saying that "you guys caused the problem" and calling them "fat cats."
This is the height of hypocrisy. Let me remind everyone that banks only operate within the regulatory environment that politicians create for them. All throughout the 80's and 90's, leftist groups led by ACORN harassed banks with protests, boycotts and lawsuits, falsely claiming banks were "discriminating" against minorities in terms of their lending practices.
The allegations were bogus. Banks do discriminate, however, against people with shaky finances regardless of race. And they should. Banks are not a welfare program. They're a business. They make lending decisions based on hard numbers such as a person's credit rating. That really don't care what race a person is; if someone's credit history gives a bank reason to believe its loan will be paid back, they'll make the loan. However, this was all before Congress started to meddle in banks' lending decisions.
Many of the 60's activists ended up getting involved with groups that harassed banks and filing lawsuits against them. Some of these suits were successful in that they often ended in settlements in which the banks agreed to make high risk loans to people who simply were not credit worthy. Eventually, this movement led to Congressional legislation called the Community Reinvestment Act, which applied even more pressure onto banks to make lending decisions based not on fiscal worthiness but on "diversity." And that was the beginning of the credit crisis.
So lets be clear here. Banks have been forced to make high risk loans as a result of years of protests, legislation, boycotts, and the CRA act. And who was involved with all of this? Why, our very own anointed one. Barack Obama.
You can see his name here in the actual docket from one ACORN suit against Citibank:
http://www.mediacircus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/FH-IL-0011-9000.pdf
Or you can read more about this case here:
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
Yet Obama has the audacity to blame banks for acting under regulations that the movement created by ACORN successfully pushed for?
Not that's chutzpah.
Obama's defenders have tried to play this down, saying that Obama was only one of a group of attorneys involved with the case and was not the lead attorney. That is true, but what they ignore is the fact that Obama was involved in many aspects of ACORN, from speaking at its training schools to encouraging leftist foundations to give it funding. Obama deeply believes in ACORN's anti-corporate, anti-free market philosophy, including the belief that banks engaged in racism even though no one has even proved this reckless allegation.
It time to face the truth folks: Obama was part of the "social justice" movement which created the incredibly stupid regulatory climate that caused banks to make loans they otherwise would never have made.
Steve Baldwin
Baldwin Research & Consulting
by Steve Baldwin
This week we saw Obama on all the news shows blaming banks for the credit crisis saying that "you guys caused the problem" and calling them "fat cats."
This is the height of hypocrisy. Let me remind everyone that banks only operate within the regulatory environment that politicians create for them. All throughout the 80's and 90's, leftist groups led by ACORN harassed banks with protests, boycotts and lawsuits, falsely claiming banks were "discriminating" against minorities in terms of their lending practices.
The allegations were bogus. Banks do discriminate, however, against people with shaky finances regardless of race. And they should. Banks are not a welfare program. They're a business. They make lending decisions based on hard numbers such as a person's credit rating. That really don't care what race a person is; if someone's credit history gives a bank reason to believe its loan will be paid back, they'll make the loan. However, this was all before Congress started to meddle in banks' lending decisions.
Many of the 60's activists ended up getting involved with groups that harassed banks and filing lawsuits against them. Some of these suits were successful in that they often ended in settlements in which the banks agreed to make high risk loans to people who simply were not credit worthy. Eventually, this movement led to Congressional legislation called the Community Reinvestment Act, which applied even more pressure onto banks to make lending decisions based not on fiscal worthiness but on "diversity." And that was the beginning of the credit crisis.
So lets be clear here. Banks have been forced to make high risk loans as a result of years of protests, legislation, boycotts, and the CRA act. And who was involved with all of this? Why, our very own anointed one. Barack Obama.
You can see his name here in the actual docket from one ACORN suit against Citibank:
http://www.mediacircus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/FH-IL-0011-9000.pdf
Or you can read more about this case here:
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
Yet Obama has the audacity to blame banks for acting under regulations that the movement created by ACORN successfully pushed for?
Not that's chutzpah.
Obama's defenders have tried to play this down, saying that Obama was only one of a group of attorneys involved with the case and was not the lead attorney. That is true, but what they ignore is the fact that Obama was involved in many aspects of ACORN, from speaking at its training schools to encouraging leftist foundations to give it funding. Obama deeply believes in ACORN's anti-corporate, anti-free market philosophy, including the belief that banks engaged in racism even though no one has even proved this reckless allegation.
It time to face the truth folks: Obama was part of the "social justice" movement which created the incredibly stupid regulatory climate that caused banks to make loans they otherwise would never have made.
Steve Baldwin
Baldwin Research & Consulting
Corruption In The White House
Is The First Lady The ‘Eva Peron’ Of The Obama Administration?
December 17, 2009 – Washington Examiner investigate journalist Byron York is reporting on a congressional investigation involving First Lady Michelle Obama and her role in the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
Walpin had been fired on June 10, 2009 for his role in the investigation of the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by the Obama friend, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California.
Walpin’s firing was illegal. Law requires that the President notify Congress 30 days before firing an Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service and give reasons why. Walpin’s character was smeared by Obama Administration officials. The White House claims Walpin was fired because he was “confused” and was concerned about his capacity to serve in the position. Glenn Beck interviewed Walpin to find out if he were truly “confused” or just doing his job to effectively expose government fraud.
Republican investigators have discovered that Alan Solomont, former chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service (which oversees AmeriCorps) had denied meeting with Jackie Norris, First Lady Obama’s former chief of staff.
However, recently released visitor logs to the White House reveal that Solmont met with Norris on June 9 – just a day before Walpin was fired. Either he lied to investigators or he forgot meeting with Norris.
After being shown the logs, Solomont then explained that he had met with Norris to discuss Corporation business, but did not discuss Walpin.
York reports that First Lady Obama had taken a special interest in playing a central role in the national service agenda and that she was going to appoint the Corporation’s new Chief Executive Officer. On June 4, Jackie Norris left First Lady Obama’s office to work as a senior advisor at the Corporation.
Republican investigators were interested in learning that Solomont, who had first denied meeting with Norris, had visited the White House 17 times and met with Norris on three of those occasions.
The investigators note that on June 3, Solomont had sent an email to a White House lawyer to discuss who might replace Walpin. Clearly, he was involved in some sort of planning to oust Walpin.
Solomont has since been picked by President Obama to become Ambassador to Spain. His nomination had a hold placed on it by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), but Grassley has since removed the hold. Another Senator has put a hold on Solomont’s nomination until more facts can be discovered about his role – and the First Lady’s – in the illegal firing of Walpin.
According to Grassley, “I remain concerned about the accuracy and completeness of Mr. Solomont’s answers to questions during both his July 15 and December 8, 2009 interviews.”
Jackie Norris and First Lady Michelle Obama should be compelled to testify under oath about what role each of them might have played in illegally ousting Gerald Walpin from his position as Inspector General.
“The American people need to know if they have Evita in the White House pulling strings and getting people fired to protect her husband’s corrupt friends,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.
December 17, 2009 – Washington Examiner investigate journalist Byron York is reporting on a congressional investigation involving First Lady Michelle Obama and her role in the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
Walpin had been fired on June 10, 2009 for his role in the investigation of the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by the Obama friend, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California.
Walpin’s firing was illegal. Law requires that the President notify Congress 30 days before firing an Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service and give reasons why. Walpin’s character was smeared by Obama Administration officials. The White House claims Walpin was fired because he was “confused” and was concerned about his capacity to serve in the position. Glenn Beck interviewed Walpin to find out if he were truly “confused” or just doing his job to effectively expose government fraud.
Republican investigators have discovered that Alan Solomont, former chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service (which oversees AmeriCorps) had denied meeting with Jackie Norris, First Lady Obama’s former chief of staff.
However, recently released visitor logs to the White House reveal that Solmont met with Norris on June 9 – just a day before Walpin was fired. Either he lied to investigators or he forgot meeting with Norris.
After being shown the logs, Solomont then explained that he had met with Norris to discuss Corporation business, but did not discuss Walpin.
York reports that First Lady Obama had taken a special interest in playing a central role in the national service agenda and that she was going to appoint the Corporation’s new Chief Executive Officer. On June 4, Jackie Norris left First Lady Obama’s office to work as a senior advisor at the Corporation.
Republican investigators were interested in learning that Solomont, who had first denied meeting with Norris, had visited the White House 17 times and met with Norris on three of those occasions.
The investigators note that on June 3, Solomont had sent an email to a White House lawyer to discuss who might replace Walpin. Clearly, he was involved in some sort of planning to oust Walpin.
Solomont has since been picked by President Obama to become Ambassador to Spain. His nomination had a hold placed on it by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), but Grassley has since removed the hold. Another Senator has put a hold on Solomont’s nomination until more facts can be discovered about his role – and the First Lady’s – in the illegal firing of Walpin.
According to Grassley, “I remain concerned about the accuracy and completeness of Mr. Solomont’s answers to questions during both his July 15 and December 8, 2009 interviews.”
Jackie Norris and First Lady Michelle Obama should be compelled to testify under oath about what role each of them might have played in illegally ousting Gerald Walpin from his position as Inspector General.
“The American people need to know if they have Evita in the White House pulling strings and getting people fired to protect her husband’s corrupt friends,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Secret Provisions Of Cap and Trade
House License?
I encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. I am ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA.
A license required for your house, no longer just for cars and mobile homes.
Thinking about selling your house, take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) (H.R. 2454) This is unbelievable! Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home “owners”!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you will not be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this ACT. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded.
However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus,
You Mr. And Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you will not be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you do not get a high enough rating, you cannot sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines To be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and Commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America . Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you will not be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (I.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "cannot have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that is YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-+Cap+and+Trade&btnG=Google+Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-cap+and+Trade&btnG=Google+Search
I encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. I am ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA.
A license required for your house, no longer just for cars and mobile homes.
Thinking about selling your house, take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) (H.R. 2454) This is unbelievable! Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home “owners”!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you will not be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this ACT. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded.
However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus,
You Mr. And Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you will not be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right. The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you do not get a high enough rating, you cannot sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines To be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and Commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America . Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you will not be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (I.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "cannot have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that is YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-+Cap+and+Trade&btnG=Google+Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-cap+and+Trade&btnG=Google+Search
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Immigration Done Right
Sheriff Arpaio ups the ante against his foes
Joe Arpaio has escalated his tactics, not only defying the federal government on immigration but launching repeated investigations of those who criticize him.
The day after the federal government told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio that he could no longer use his deputies to round up suspected illegal immigrants on the street, the combative Arizona sheriff did just that.He launched one of his notorious "sweeps," in which his officers descend on heavily Latino neighborhoods, arrest hundreds of people for violations as minor as a busted headlight and ask them whether they are in the country legally.
"I wanted to show everybody it didn't make a difference," Arpaio said of the Obama administration's order.
Arpaio calls himself "America's toughest sheriff" and remains widely popular across the state. For two decades, he has basked in publicity over his colorful tactics, such as dressing jail inmates in pink underwear and housing them in outdoor tents during the brutal Phoenix summers.
But he has escalated his tactics in recent months, not only defying the federal government but launching repeated investigations of those who criticize him. He recently filed a racketeering lawsuit against the entire Maricopa County power structure. On Thursday night, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an emergency order forbidding the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office from searching the home or chambers of a Superior Court judge who was named in the racketeering case.
Last year, when Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon called for a federal investigation of Arpaio's immigration enforcement, the Sheriff's Office demanded to see Gordon's e-mails, phone logs and appointment calendars.
When the police chief in one suburb complained about the sweeps, Arpaio's deputies raided that town's City Hall.
A local television station, KPHO, in a 10-minute-long segment last month, documented two dozen instances of the sheriff launching investigations of critics, none of which led to convictions.
The most notorious case involves county Supervisor Don Stapley, a Republican who has sometimes disagreed with Arpaio's immigration tactics. Last December, deputies arrested Stapley on charges of failing to disclose business interests properly on his statement of economic interest.
Stapley's alarmed supervisor colleagues had their offices swept for listening devices. Arpaio contended the search was illegal and sent investigators to the homes of dozens of county staffers to grill them about the sweep.
A judge in September dismissed several of the allegations against Stapley, and prosecutors dropped the case. Three days later, Arpaio's deputies arrested Stapley again after he parked his car in a downtown parking structure near his office.
No charges were filed until County Atty. Andrew Thomas -- Arpaio's ally in his fights with the supervisor -- charged Stapley this week with misusing money he raised to run for president of the National Assn. of Counties.
"It's just extraordinary, the kind of thing that takes place in Third World dictatorships," said Paul Charlton, a former U.S. attorney who is representing Stapley. He predicted the latest charges would also be dismissed. "So many people are of one mind on a single issue -- illegal immigration -- that they are willing to ignore these misdeeds."
Arpaio brushes off suggestions that he's used his office to go after critics. Many of the complaints, as in the Stapley case, come from targets of anti-corruption probes that started with tips rather than the sheriff's personal intercession.
"We don't abuse our power," Arpaio said in an interview. "We do what we have to do."
Arpaio, a Republican, is highly popular in Arizona. He won reelection last year with 55% of the vote in the state's most populous county. Though he has said he's not interested in running for governor, a recent poll showed him crushing the presumptive Democratic nominee, state Atty. Gen. Terry Goddard, 51% to 39%.
The sheriff was not always at war with much of the region's political establishment. A former official with the Drug Enforcement Administration who was first elected sheriff in 1992, Arpaio had support from the majority-Republican county Board of Supervisors and from local Latino leaders.
"He had a very good relationship with the Hispanic community," said Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, the lone Democrat and lone Latina on the board.
But by 2005, central Arizona was seething over illegal immigration. Crime was rising in Phoenix, a key smuggling hub that was becoming the kidnapping capital of the country.
Arpaio received a federal waiver, known as a 287(g), that allowed his deputies to enforce federal immigration laws. He said he had identified more than 30,000 illegal immigrants through his sweeps and interrogations in the county jail.
In October, the federal Department of Homeland Security revoked the 287(g) for Arpaio's street operations, though he could continue to question jail inmates about their immigration status.
Arpaio, however, said state law permitted him to continue his street operations and is awaiting a legal opinion from Thomas, the county attorney.
Latino community leaders say Arpaio has become more aggressive since he was stripped of some authority in the 287(g) program.
"It's actually gotten worse rather than better," said Salvador Reza, an activist who added that some immigrants don't dare turn the lights on in their homes at night for fear that Arpaio's deputies would knock at their doors.
A Homeland Security spokesman declined to comment, referring a reporter to statements Secretary Janet Napolitano gave to a liberal advocacy group in Washington.
Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona, said Arpaio "was unwilling to accept that there were standards that needed to be met. He wanted to go off on his own. And so that's where we had a parting of ways." She acknowledged, however, that state law would allow him to continue making his arrests.
The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into Arpaio's tactics. The sheriff has refused to cooperate and has called for an investigation of the investigators.
As Arpaio has fenced with the Obama administration, he has become embroiled in a sometimes-surreal battle with the five county supervisors who oversee his budget. Amid the recession, they have cut the sheriff's budget by 12.2%.
Arpaio and Thomas filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against the county supervisors, administrators and several judges who have ruled against the two in prior cases.
Arpaio and Thomas contended there was a conspiracy to assign the Stapley prosecution to an anti-Thomas judge, part of an effort to cover up what they call a wasteful county effort to build a new courthouse.
County officials noted that Arpaio and Thomas have sued them six times in efforts to regain power over their budgets -- and they lost every time.
Tensions escalated this week when the county attorney filed criminal charges against the presiding judge of the county's criminal courts, alleging bribery and obstruction of justice for ruling against Arpaio and prosecutors in some of those previous legal battles.
Wilcox, whom Thomas charged this week with violating state laws by voting on government contracts for a charitable organization that gave one of her businesses a loan, said she had been stunned by the sheriff's conduct.
"They have made life hell on everybody," she said of Arpaio and Thomas."Every time you speak out, they investigate you."
"Racketeering? That's just crazy," she added. "We're becoming the laughingstock of America."
Joe Arpaio has escalated his tactics, not only defying the federal government on immigration but launching repeated investigations of those who criticize him.
The day after the federal government told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio that he could no longer use his deputies to round up suspected illegal immigrants on the street, the combative Arizona sheriff did just that.He launched one of his notorious "sweeps," in which his officers descend on heavily Latino neighborhoods, arrest hundreds of people for violations as minor as a busted headlight and ask them whether they are in the country legally.
"I wanted to show everybody it didn't make a difference," Arpaio said of the Obama administration's order.
Arpaio calls himself "America's toughest sheriff" and remains widely popular across the state. For two decades, he has basked in publicity over his colorful tactics, such as dressing jail inmates in pink underwear and housing them in outdoor tents during the brutal Phoenix summers.
But he has escalated his tactics in recent months, not only defying the federal government but launching repeated investigations of those who criticize him. He recently filed a racketeering lawsuit against the entire Maricopa County power structure. On Thursday night, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an emergency order forbidding the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office from searching the home or chambers of a Superior Court judge who was named in the racketeering case.
Last year, when Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon called for a federal investigation of Arpaio's immigration enforcement, the Sheriff's Office demanded to see Gordon's e-mails, phone logs and appointment calendars.
When the police chief in one suburb complained about the sweeps, Arpaio's deputies raided that town's City Hall.
A local television station, KPHO, in a 10-minute-long segment last month, documented two dozen instances of the sheriff launching investigations of critics, none of which led to convictions.
The most notorious case involves county Supervisor Don Stapley, a Republican who has sometimes disagreed with Arpaio's immigration tactics. Last December, deputies arrested Stapley on charges of failing to disclose business interests properly on his statement of economic interest.
Stapley's alarmed supervisor colleagues had their offices swept for listening devices. Arpaio contended the search was illegal and sent investigators to the homes of dozens of county staffers to grill them about the sweep.
A judge in September dismissed several of the allegations against Stapley, and prosecutors dropped the case. Three days later, Arpaio's deputies arrested Stapley again after he parked his car in a downtown parking structure near his office.
No charges were filed until County Atty. Andrew Thomas -- Arpaio's ally in his fights with the supervisor -- charged Stapley this week with misusing money he raised to run for president of the National Assn. of Counties.
"It's just extraordinary, the kind of thing that takes place in Third World dictatorships," said Paul Charlton, a former U.S. attorney who is representing Stapley. He predicted the latest charges would also be dismissed. "So many people are of one mind on a single issue -- illegal immigration -- that they are willing to ignore these misdeeds."
Arpaio brushes off suggestions that he's used his office to go after critics. Many of the complaints, as in the Stapley case, come from targets of anti-corruption probes that started with tips rather than the sheriff's personal intercession.
"We don't abuse our power," Arpaio said in an interview. "We do what we have to do."
Arpaio, a Republican, is highly popular in Arizona. He won reelection last year with 55% of the vote in the state's most populous county. Though he has said he's not interested in running for governor, a recent poll showed him crushing the presumptive Democratic nominee, state Atty. Gen. Terry Goddard, 51% to 39%.
The sheriff was not always at war with much of the region's political establishment. A former official with the Drug Enforcement Administration who was first elected sheriff in 1992, Arpaio had support from the majority-Republican county Board of Supervisors and from local Latino leaders.
"He had a very good relationship with the Hispanic community," said Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, the lone Democrat and lone Latina on the board.
But by 2005, central Arizona was seething over illegal immigration. Crime was rising in Phoenix, a key smuggling hub that was becoming the kidnapping capital of the country.
Arpaio received a federal waiver, known as a 287(g), that allowed his deputies to enforce federal immigration laws. He said he had identified more than 30,000 illegal immigrants through his sweeps and interrogations in the county jail.
In October, the federal Department of Homeland Security revoked the 287(g) for Arpaio's street operations, though he could continue to question jail inmates about their immigration status.
Arpaio, however, said state law permitted him to continue his street operations and is awaiting a legal opinion from Thomas, the county attorney.
Latino community leaders say Arpaio has become more aggressive since he was stripped of some authority in the 287(g) program.
"It's actually gotten worse rather than better," said Salvador Reza, an activist who added that some immigrants don't dare turn the lights on in their homes at night for fear that Arpaio's deputies would knock at their doors.
A Homeland Security spokesman declined to comment, referring a reporter to statements Secretary Janet Napolitano gave to a liberal advocacy group in Washington.
Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona, said Arpaio "was unwilling to accept that there were standards that needed to be met. He wanted to go off on his own. And so that's where we had a parting of ways." She acknowledged, however, that state law would allow him to continue making his arrests.
The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into Arpaio's tactics. The sheriff has refused to cooperate and has called for an investigation of the investigators.
As Arpaio has fenced with the Obama administration, he has become embroiled in a sometimes-surreal battle with the five county supervisors who oversee his budget. Amid the recession, they have cut the sheriff's budget by 12.2%.
Arpaio and Thomas filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against the county supervisors, administrators and several judges who have ruled against the two in prior cases.
Arpaio and Thomas contended there was a conspiracy to assign the Stapley prosecution to an anti-Thomas judge, part of an effort to cover up what they call a wasteful county effort to build a new courthouse.
County officials noted that Arpaio and Thomas have sued them six times in efforts to regain power over their budgets -- and they lost every time.
Tensions escalated this week when the county attorney filed criminal charges against the presiding judge of the county's criminal courts, alleging bribery and obstruction of justice for ruling against Arpaio and prosecutors in some of those previous legal battles.
Wilcox, whom Thomas charged this week with violating state laws by voting on government contracts for a charitable organization that gave one of her businesses a loan, said she had been stunned by the sheriff's conduct.
"They have made life hell on everybody," she said of Arpaio and Thomas."Every time you speak out, they investigate you."
"Racketeering? That's just crazy," she added. "We're becoming the laughingstock of America."
The Attack On Christmas
We Wish You A Merry Multicultural, Inoffensive, Inclusive, Secular Seasonal Holiday
By Don Feder
Yes, Virginia, there really is a war on Christmas, despite feeble attempts of the left to convince us that the controversy was concocted by Bill O’Reilly, FOX News and the dreaded Christian right.
That the war is real is incontrovertible. More interesting is the why.
An estimated 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas – not Kwanza, winter solstice, Eid or Buddah’s Birthday.
According to a November Rasmussen poll, when shopping, 72% of Americans favor the salutation “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays,” versus 22% who prefer the generic greeting. The Christmas camp (doubtless spurred by sinister, theocratic impulses) gained 4 percentage points from last year.
In a Rasmussen survey released on December 10, 76% of adults said it’s okay to display religious symbols, like Nativity scenes and menorahs, in public settings (up 2 points from 2008). A paltry 11% disagree. Moreover, 83% believe public schools should celebrate religious holidays.
The foregoing hasn't made a dent in the militantly secular mindset.
Here are a few of the skirmishes in the 2009 War on Christmas:
• Michelle Zundel, principal of the Ashland, Ore. Elementary School (who had already exiled Christmas trees and Santa Claus), ordered the removal of the school’s “holiday giving tree” – possibly for fear that it might cause some to wonder which holiday is connected with giving and trees. The non-inclusive tree was replaced by two snowmen. Zundel explained that a snowman is “created by children who play in the snow (for this she needed a PhD.?), and so it doesn’t have a particular religious bent” – unless, it’s wearing a yarmulke or carrying a cross.
• Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear decreed that the decorated tree on the lawn of the state capitol should henceforth and forever more be a “holiday tree” (which wouldn’t pass muster in Ashland Ore.). Phone calls and e-mails to his office, prompted by the American Family Association, caused the governor to reverse his earlier decision, and re-christen (can I say that?) the conifer a Christmas Tree.
• Erik Brown, principal and grand inquisitor of the Waterbury, Connecticut Elementary School, ordered his staff to shun secular as well as religious symbols during its December 21 “winter celebration.” Thus, Frosty the Snowman joins the baby Jesus in the janitor’s closet. Brown claims the move brings the school into compliance with “a state law that schools can’t knowingly exclude school children.” Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights notes that there is no such law in Connecticut. Donohue also points out some glaring contradictions: On the Waterbury School District Calendar, April 2 (a vacation day) is identified as “Good Friday” – clearly excluding those for whom the day is not particularly good. Also, Christmas carols and Hanukah songs, as well “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town,” will be sung at the school’s “winter celebration day,” thereby knowingly excluding those who could care less whether the jolly old elf is en route, as well as those who’d rather sing odes to Allah.
• Howard County, Indiana has decided to replace the traditional manger scene on the lawn of the county courthouse with a lighted display of the Loch Ness monster and other beasts, real and imaginary. County Commissioner Tyler Moore pleaded, “If we put religious or Christmas decorations up, we’d be offending a whole other group of citizens and taxpayers.” Really? And who would they be? I’m sure Moore has no idea. But if someone – anyone – is outraged by a crèche, that’s reason enough to nix it. Never mind the taxpayers who are offended that the Loch Ness Monster (whose birth is not traditionally celebrated at this time of the year) is a stand-in for something relating to a holiday observed by 96% of the American people.
• Amelia, Ore. cancelled its 29th annual Christmas parade. Chelmsford, Mass. has prohibited donations of candy canes, stockings and Santas to its annual gift sale. And, in a rare victory for sanity, the selectmen of North Andover, Mass will allow the town’s fire department to display a “Merry Christmas” sign, as it has for the past half-century, reversing an earlier decision.
The other side has a clever riposte to those who object to the foregoing: The War on Christmas is a hoax perpetrated by media hounds and paranoid, axe-grinding Christian fundamentalists.
Writing in The Grand Rapids Press, columnist Troy Reimink sneers: “secular humanists (are) resuming their annual plot to dismantle the fabric of American society. That’s right, the annual war on Christmas – or, rather, people screaming into megaphones about what they imagine to be a war on Christmas – is under way.”
In the Chicago Sun Times, Joel Mathis charges that the War on Christmas is “a trumped up controversy to insert Bill O’Reilly and the American Family Association into the headlines.” O’Reilly and AFA President Tim Wildmon must be busy boys, zipping around the country, banning Christmas carols and creches, and magically transforming Christmas trees into Holiday hedges, all for the sake of publicity.
Speaking of the AFA campaign to get retailers to wish their customers a “Merry Christmas,” Mathis charges that “some Christians are so insecure about their place in American culture that they are demanding the rest of the culture pander to them. Never mind that there are a whole host of holidays celebrated by Americans this time of the year: Hanukah, Kwanza, the winter solstice (no kidding)…” and why can’t we be more inclusive, dammit!
There are also Americans who celebrate Groundhog Day, Sadie Hawkins Day, Diwali and Ramadan-a dingdong -- and so what? Kwanza is a “holiday” invented by an enterprising Afro-centrist in the 1960s. Hanukah is probably celebrated by 2% of Americans. How does one celebrate the “winter solstice” anyway – besides venerating a photo of Shirley MacLaine?
America was founded by Christians and grew to greatness inspired by a Judeo-Christian worldview. George Washington didn’t play spin the dreidel (though he did write a famous letter of tolerance to the Jews of Newport, R.I.). The Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock didn’t have their famous feast to celebrate the winter solstice.
For most of the 20th century, we had municipal Christmas trees, public displays of cr̬ches and Christmas greetings uttered in shops and stores Рand America was better for it.
I’m a Jew. I don’t celebrate Christmas (though they tell me it commemorates the birthday of a Jewish kid). But I’m not offended by those who do, yea, even publicly. This is a Christian nation. Christianity is the glue that holds America together. As a patriot, I defend the public celebration of Christmas as a public good.
Does anyone in Israel object to municipal menorahs? Do they say, “Oh the poor Moslems, they must feel so excluded”? Only in America.
America is the only nation that has made a fetish of sensitivity and inclusiveness. But we’re very selective about that to which we are sensitive. We can have full-frontal nudity and simulated moaning and gasping on cable TV, but a manger scene on the courthouse lawn is an affront to decency.
We can have grade-school children indoctrinated in the more bizarre aspects of the homosexual lifestyle – the president of the United States can tell a gay gathering that he longs for the day when two men or two women living together are treated exactly the same as mom and dad – but Christmas carols are over the line.
Our seasonal sensitivity samba is due in part to hyper-concern for the sensibilities some, and in part to the fear of law suits. The ACLU is ever vigilant to lighted trees and other attempts to establish a national church, and ready to pounce.
But there’s another, darker motive. The War on Christmas is a War on Judeo-Christian morality is a War on America. Take our president – please!
Obama was planning a “non-religious Christmas,” White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers told a gathering of her predecessors earlier this month. That included not displaying the traditional manger scene with other Christmas decorations. The administration later reversed that decision, which apparently did not play well in Peoria.
At the lighting of the National Christmas Tree, Jeremiah Wright’s protegee told us that Christmas is no longer a religious holiday. Now, it’s “a tradition that has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion.”
If you can’t drive Christmas underground, co-opt it. How you can divorce a holiday with Christ in its name from Christianity is beyond me. But if any ideologue can do it, it’s Barack Muslim-middle-name Obama.
His comments at the Seasonal Shrub lighting are in keeping with earlier pronouncements.
Speaking in Turkey this spring, Obama informed all and sundry that: “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” Witness “In Nobody we trust” on our currency and what’s been called our second national anthem – “Allah Bless America.” And what about that section of the United States known as the Koran-belt?
Bloviating at a Human Rights Campaign banquet on October 10, boobus maximus told the assembled homosexual activists that he longs for the day when same-sex relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal families.
>From his support for abortion on demand, to his push to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, to his appointments (Kevin Jennings, who winks at pedophilia, as Safe Schools Czar), here is a president determined to finish the job of morally deconstructing America.
The banishment of Christmas from the public square advances the lie that there is not and never has been a moral consensus in the land of the free, which allows the left to say “My morality is just as good as yours” – 1.2 million abortions a year is just as good as the sanctity of life. Drug use is just as good as sobriety. Sodomy is just as good as marriage. Promiscuity is just as good as monogamy and so on.
Merry Christmas is more than symbolic. It’s a reminder of who we were and could be again, and where our institutions and system of government came from. And that the left cannot allow.
By Don Feder
Yes, Virginia, there really is a war on Christmas, despite feeble attempts of the left to convince us that the controversy was concocted by Bill O’Reilly, FOX News and the dreaded Christian right.
That the war is real is incontrovertible. More interesting is the why.
An estimated 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas – not Kwanza, winter solstice, Eid or Buddah’s Birthday.
According to a November Rasmussen poll, when shopping, 72% of Americans favor the salutation “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays,” versus 22% who prefer the generic greeting. The Christmas camp (doubtless spurred by sinister, theocratic impulses) gained 4 percentage points from last year.
In a Rasmussen survey released on December 10, 76% of adults said it’s okay to display religious symbols, like Nativity scenes and menorahs, in public settings (up 2 points from 2008). A paltry 11% disagree. Moreover, 83% believe public schools should celebrate religious holidays.
The foregoing hasn't made a dent in the militantly secular mindset.
Here are a few of the skirmishes in the 2009 War on Christmas:
• Michelle Zundel, principal of the Ashland, Ore. Elementary School (who had already exiled Christmas trees and Santa Claus), ordered the removal of the school’s “holiday giving tree” – possibly for fear that it might cause some to wonder which holiday is connected with giving and trees. The non-inclusive tree was replaced by two snowmen. Zundel explained that a snowman is “created by children who play in the snow (for this she needed a PhD.?), and so it doesn’t have a particular religious bent” – unless, it’s wearing a yarmulke or carrying a cross.
• Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear decreed that the decorated tree on the lawn of the state capitol should henceforth and forever more be a “holiday tree” (which wouldn’t pass muster in Ashland Ore.). Phone calls and e-mails to his office, prompted by the American Family Association, caused the governor to reverse his earlier decision, and re-christen (can I say that?) the conifer a Christmas Tree.
• Erik Brown, principal and grand inquisitor of the Waterbury, Connecticut Elementary School, ordered his staff to shun secular as well as religious symbols during its December 21 “winter celebration.” Thus, Frosty the Snowman joins the baby Jesus in the janitor’s closet. Brown claims the move brings the school into compliance with “a state law that schools can’t knowingly exclude school children.” Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights notes that there is no such law in Connecticut. Donohue also points out some glaring contradictions: On the Waterbury School District Calendar, April 2 (a vacation day) is identified as “Good Friday” – clearly excluding those for whom the day is not particularly good. Also, Christmas carols and Hanukah songs, as well “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town,” will be sung at the school’s “winter celebration day,” thereby knowingly excluding those who could care less whether the jolly old elf is en route, as well as those who’d rather sing odes to Allah.
• Howard County, Indiana has decided to replace the traditional manger scene on the lawn of the county courthouse with a lighted display of the Loch Ness monster and other beasts, real and imaginary. County Commissioner Tyler Moore pleaded, “If we put religious or Christmas decorations up, we’d be offending a whole other group of citizens and taxpayers.” Really? And who would they be? I’m sure Moore has no idea. But if someone – anyone – is outraged by a crèche, that’s reason enough to nix it. Never mind the taxpayers who are offended that the Loch Ness Monster (whose birth is not traditionally celebrated at this time of the year) is a stand-in for something relating to a holiday observed by 96% of the American people.
• Amelia, Ore. cancelled its 29th annual Christmas parade. Chelmsford, Mass. has prohibited donations of candy canes, stockings and Santas to its annual gift sale. And, in a rare victory for sanity, the selectmen of North Andover, Mass will allow the town’s fire department to display a “Merry Christmas” sign, as it has for the past half-century, reversing an earlier decision.
The other side has a clever riposte to those who object to the foregoing: The War on Christmas is a hoax perpetrated by media hounds and paranoid, axe-grinding Christian fundamentalists.
Writing in The Grand Rapids Press, columnist Troy Reimink sneers: “secular humanists (are) resuming their annual plot to dismantle the fabric of American society. That’s right, the annual war on Christmas – or, rather, people screaming into megaphones about what they imagine to be a war on Christmas – is under way.”
In the Chicago Sun Times, Joel Mathis charges that the War on Christmas is “a trumped up controversy to insert Bill O’Reilly and the American Family Association into the headlines.” O’Reilly and AFA President Tim Wildmon must be busy boys, zipping around the country, banning Christmas carols and creches, and magically transforming Christmas trees into Holiday hedges, all for the sake of publicity.
Speaking of the AFA campaign to get retailers to wish their customers a “Merry Christmas,” Mathis charges that “some Christians are so insecure about their place in American culture that they are demanding the rest of the culture pander to them. Never mind that there are a whole host of holidays celebrated by Americans this time of the year: Hanukah, Kwanza, the winter solstice (no kidding)…” and why can’t we be more inclusive, dammit!
There are also Americans who celebrate Groundhog Day, Sadie Hawkins Day, Diwali and Ramadan-a dingdong -- and so what? Kwanza is a “holiday” invented by an enterprising Afro-centrist in the 1960s. Hanukah is probably celebrated by 2% of Americans. How does one celebrate the “winter solstice” anyway – besides venerating a photo of Shirley MacLaine?
America was founded by Christians and grew to greatness inspired by a Judeo-Christian worldview. George Washington didn’t play spin the dreidel (though he did write a famous letter of tolerance to the Jews of Newport, R.I.). The Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock didn’t have their famous feast to celebrate the winter solstice.
For most of the 20th century, we had municipal Christmas trees, public displays of cr̬ches and Christmas greetings uttered in shops and stores Рand America was better for it.
I’m a Jew. I don’t celebrate Christmas (though they tell me it commemorates the birthday of a Jewish kid). But I’m not offended by those who do, yea, even publicly. This is a Christian nation. Christianity is the glue that holds America together. As a patriot, I defend the public celebration of Christmas as a public good.
Does anyone in Israel object to municipal menorahs? Do they say, “Oh the poor Moslems, they must feel so excluded”? Only in America.
America is the only nation that has made a fetish of sensitivity and inclusiveness. But we’re very selective about that to which we are sensitive. We can have full-frontal nudity and simulated moaning and gasping on cable TV, but a manger scene on the courthouse lawn is an affront to decency.
We can have grade-school children indoctrinated in the more bizarre aspects of the homosexual lifestyle – the president of the United States can tell a gay gathering that he longs for the day when two men or two women living together are treated exactly the same as mom and dad – but Christmas carols are over the line.
Our seasonal sensitivity samba is due in part to hyper-concern for the sensibilities some, and in part to the fear of law suits. The ACLU is ever vigilant to lighted trees and other attempts to establish a national church, and ready to pounce.
But there’s another, darker motive. The War on Christmas is a War on Judeo-Christian morality is a War on America. Take our president – please!
Obama was planning a “non-religious Christmas,” White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers told a gathering of her predecessors earlier this month. That included not displaying the traditional manger scene with other Christmas decorations. The administration later reversed that decision, which apparently did not play well in Peoria.
At the lighting of the National Christmas Tree, Jeremiah Wright’s protegee told us that Christmas is no longer a religious holiday. Now, it’s “a tradition that has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion.”
If you can’t drive Christmas underground, co-opt it. How you can divorce a holiday with Christ in its name from Christianity is beyond me. But if any ideologue can do it, it’s Barack Muslim-middle-name Obama.
His comments at the Seasonal Shrub lighting are in keeping with earlier pronouncements.
Speaking in Turkey this spring, Obama informed all and sundry that: “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” Witness “In Nobody we trust” on our currency and what’s been called our second national anthem – “Allah Bless America.” And what about that section of the United States known as the Koran-belt?
Bloviating at a Human Rights Campaign banquet on October 10, boobus maximus told the assembled homosexual activists that he longs for the day when same-sex relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal families.
>From his support for abortion on demand, to his push to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, to his appointments (Kevin Jennings, who winks at pedophilia, as Safe Schools Czar), here is a president determined to finish the job of morally deconstructing America.
The banishment of Christmas from the public square advances the lie that there is not and never has been a moral consensus in the land of the free, which allows the left to say “My morality is just as good as yours” – 1.2 million abortions a year is just as good as the sanctity of life. Drug use is just as good as sobriety. Sodomy is just as good as marriage. Promiscuity is just as good as monogamy and so on.
Merry Christmas is more than symbolic. It’s a reminder of who we were and could be again, and where our institutions and system of government came from. And that the left cannot allow.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Revisionist History
Hollywood and Howard Zinn's Marxist Education Project
by Michelle Malkin
The two most important questions for society, according to the Greek philosopher Plato, are these: What will we teach our children? And who will teach them? Left-wing celebrities have teamed up with one of America's most radical historians to take control of the classroom in the name of "social justice." Parents, beware: This Hollywood-backed Marxist education project may be coming to a school near you.
On Sunday, Dec. 13, the History Channel will air "The People Speak" -- a documentary based on Marxist academic Howard Zinn's capitalism-bashing, America-dissing, grievance-mongering history textbook, "A People's History of the United States." The film was co-produced and bankrolled by Zinn's Boston neighbor and mentee Matt Damon. An all-star cast of Bush-bashing liberals, including Danny Glover, Josh Brolin, Bruce Springsteen, Marisa Tomei and Eddie Vedder, will appear. Zinn's work is a self-proclaimed "biased account" of American history that rails against white oppressors, the free market and the military.
Zinn's objective is not to impart knowledge, but to instigate "change" and nurture a political "counterforce" (an echo of fellow radical academic and Hugo Chavez admirer Bill Ayers' proclamation of education as the "motor-force of revolution"). Teachers are not supposed to teach facts in the school of Zinn. "There is no such thing as pure fact," Zinn asserts. Educators are not supposed to emphasize individual academic achievement. They are supposed to "empower" student collectivism by emphasizing "the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements." School officials are not facilitators of intellectual inquiry, but leaders of "social struggle."
Zinn and company have launched a nationwide education project in conjunction with the documentary. "A people's history requires a people's pedagogy to match," Zinn preaches. The project is a collaboration between two "social justice" activist groups, Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change.
Rethinking Schools recently boasted of killing a social studies textbook series in the Milwaukee school system because it "failed to teach social responsibility." A Rethinking Schools guide on the September 11 jihadi attacks instructs teachers to "nurture student empathy" for our enemies and dissuade students from identifying as Americans. "It's our job to reach beyond this chauvinism." And a Rethinking Schools guide to early childhood education written by Ann Pelo disparages "a too-heavy focus on academic skills" in favor of "social justice and ecological teaching" for preschoolers.
Teaching for Change's objective, in Obama-esque fashion, is to train students not to achieve actual proficiency in core academic subjects, but to inspire them to "become active global citizens." Today's non-achieving aspirants are tomorrow's Nobel Peace Prize winners, after all.
No part of the school curriculum is immune from the social justice makeover crew. Zinn's partners at Rethinking Schools have even issued teaching guides to "Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers" -- which rejects the traditional white male patriarchal methods of teaching computation and statistics in favor of p.c.-ified number-crunching:
"'Rethinking Mathematics' is divided into four parts. The first part is devoted to a broad view of mathematics that includes historical and cultural implications. Part Two includes nine classroom narratives in which teachers describe lessons they have used that infuse social justice issues into their mathematics curriculum. Included here … an AP calculus lesson on income distribution. The third part contains three detailed classroom experiences/lessons. These include a physical depiction of the inequitable distribution of the world's wealth, the results of a student investigation into how many U.S. presidents owned slaves, and a wonderful classroom game called 'Transnational Capital Auction' in which students take on the role of leaders of Third World countries bidding competitively for new factories from a multinational corporation. …
"Short lessons, provocative cartoons and snippets of statistics are scattered throughout 'Rethinking Mathematics.' A partial list of topics includes racial profiling, unemployment rate calculation, the war in Iraq, environmental racism, globalization, wealth distribution and poverty, wheelchair ramps, urban density, HIV/AIDS, deconstructing Barbie, junk food advertising to children and lotteries." (from a review by James V. Rauff of Millikin University)
Our students will continue to come in dead last in international testing. But no worries. With Howard Zinn and Hollywood leftists in charge, empty-headed young global citizens will have heavier guilt, wider social consciences and more hatred for America than any other students in the world.
by Michelle Malkin
The two most important questions for society, according to the Greek philosopher Plato, are these: What will we teach our children? And who will teach them? Left-wing celebrities have teamed up with one of America's most radical historians to take control of the classroom in the name of "social justice." Parents, beware: This Hollywood-backed Marxist education project may be coming to a school near you.
On Sunday, Dec. 13, the History Channel will air "The People Speak" -- a documentary based on Marxist academic Howard Zinn's capitalism-bashing, America-dissing, grievance-mongering history textbook, "A People's History of the United States." The film was co-produced and bankrolled by Zinn's Boston neighbor and mentee Matt Damon. An all-star cast of Bush-bashing liberals, including Danny Glover, Josh Brolin, Bruce Springsteen, Marisa Tomei and Eddie Vedder, will appear. Zinn's work is a self-proclaimed "biased account" of American history that rails against white oppressors, the free market and the military.
Zinn's objective is not to impart knowledge, but to instigate "change" and nurture a political "counterforce" (an echo of fellow radical academic and Hugo Chavez admirer Bill Ayers' proclamation of education as the "motor-force of revolution"). Teachers are not supposed to teach facts in the school of Zinn. "There is no such thing as pure fact," Zinn asserts. Educators are not supposed to emphasize individual academic achievement. They are supposed to "empower" student collectivism by emphasizing "the role of working people, women, people of color and organized social movements." School officials are not facilitators of intellectual inquiry, but leaders of "social struggle."
Zinn and company have launched a nationwide education project in conjunction with the documentary. "A people's history requires a people's pedagogy to match," Zinn preaches. The project is a collaboration between two "social justice" activist groups, Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change.
Rethinking Schools recently boasted of killing a social studies textbook series in the Milwaukee school system because it "failed to teach social responsibility." A Rethinking Schools guide on the September 11 jihadi attacks instructs teachers to "nurture student empathy" for our enemies and dissuade students from identifying as Americans. "It's our job to reach beyond this chauvinism." And a Rethinking Schools guide to early childhood education written by Ann Pelo disparages "a too-heavy focus on academic skills" in favor of "social justice and ecological teaching" for preschoolers.
Teaching for Change's objective, in Obama-esque fashion, is to train students not to achieve actual proficiency in core academic subjects, but to inspire them to "become active global citizens." Today's non-achieving aspirants are tomorrow's Nobel Peace Prize winners, after all.
No part of the school curriculum is immune from the social justice makeover crew. Zinn's partners at Rethinking Schools have even issued teaching guides to "Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers" -- which rejects the traditional white male patriarchal methods of teaching computation and statistics in favor of p.c.-ified number-crunching:
"'Rethinking Mathematics' is divided into four parts. The first part is devoted to a broad view of mathematics that includes historical and cultural implications. Part Two includes nine classroom narratives in which teachers describe lessons they have used that infuse social justice issues into their mathematics curriculum. Included here … an AP calculus lesson on income distribution. The third part contains three detailed classroom experiences/lessons. These include a physical depiction of the inequitable distribution of the world's wealth, the results of a student investigation into how many U.S. presidents owned slaves, and a wonderful classroom game called 'Transnational Capital Auction' in which students take on the role of leaders of Third World countries bidding competitively for new factories from a multinational corporation. …
"Short lessons, provocative cartoons and snippets of statistics are scattered throughout 'Rethinking Mathematics.' A partial list of topics includes racial profiling, unemployment rate calculation, the war in Iraq, environmental racism, globalization, wealth distribution and poverty, wheelchair ramps, urban density, HIV/AIDS, deconstructing Barbie, junk food advertising to children and lotteries." (from a review by James V. Rauff of Millikin University)
Our students will continue to come in dead last in international testing. But no worries. With Howard Zinn and Hollywood leftists in charge, empty-headed young global citizens will have heavier guilt, wider social consciences and more hatred for America than any other students in the world.
The War On Christianity Escalates
The War on Christmas
by Chip Wood
I’ve written before about how upset I get at all the politically correct prissies who refuse to let their salespeople or employees wish their customers “Merry Christmas” this time of year.
Because they’re afraid they might upset someone who doesn’t celebrate the holiday they insist on such mind-numbing platitudes as “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.” I hear it over and over again—and always respond with a loud and cheery “and Merry Christmas to you!” Most of time, I get a cheerful “Merry Christmas” right back.
Sadly, the war against Christmas continues to gain ground. Public-school officials at Marysville Elementary School in Wilmington, N.C., decided not to allow the kindergarten class to sing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” at the school’s annual Christmas—oops, scratch that—the school’s annual holiday show. Seems the parent of one student objected to the song because it contained the word “Christmas.” She didn’t want her little tyke exposed to something with “religious overtones.” So the school officials buckled.
What do they do at the public schools in your area?
Meanwhile, the battle against public display of anything religious claimed another victim, this time in Washington, D.C. The new visitor’s center at the United States Capitol contains a replica of the Speaker’s rostrum in the House chamber. It’s an exact copy, except for this change: The actual chair has the words “In God We Trust” engraved across the top. The phrase is missing from the copy. I wonder which scaredy-cat bureaucrat decided on that?
We’ve become so afraid of offending a tiny (but vocal) minority that it’s perfectly all right to ignore the wishes and beliefs of a huge (but silent) majority. I’ve heard this sad situation referred to as the tyranny of the minority. But I think a more accurate phrase is the cowardice of the majority. What a bunch of spineless sissies our leaders have become.
What the Constitution Actually Says
Permit me to rant for a bit about one of the biggest lies the anti-religious zealots have used against us. It is that “the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.”
Baloney. The Constitution requires no such thing.
Let me begin today’s lesson by asking you, what is the most important sentence in the U.S. Constitution?
I would submit that it’s the very first one. Do you remember how this marvelous document begins? Our founding fathers set the tone for everything they believed, and everything that would follow, in Article I, Section 1, sentence one. It reads, “All legislative powers herein granted are vested in Congress….”
A friend of mine who has lectured widely on the Constitution likes to stop at this point and ask: “Are there any math students present? Okay, maybe you can help me out. If ‘all’ lawmaking power resides in Congress, how much is in the Supreme Court? Right, none! How about the Executive Branch? Right, none again. Thanks for your help.”
There’s a very important principle here—one that has been deliberately obfuscated over the past 50 years. A Supreme Court decision isn’t supposed to be “the law of the land.” The Court has no Constitutional right to make law. All it is supposed to do is to decide “the law of the case.” Their decision should be binding on the plaintiff and the defendant … and no one else.
Instead, for most of my lifetime, layer upon layer of additional government has been sanctioned, and even initiated, by the black-robed justices of the U.S. Supreme Court—men and women who regularly and repeatedly ignore the very first sentence of the document they have sworn to uphold.
And let me digress for a moment to note that the very same principle applies to the Executive Branch. What lawmaking powers does the Constitution bestow on the President and all of the cabinets, agencies and commissions he oversees? Again, the answer is none. Yet we get Executive Orders, Presidential decrees, all sorts of new rules and regulations, and now dozens of new “czars,” for crying out loud. Each and every one has assumed powers that are nowhere granted in the Constitution. And no one dares challenge them!
With that as background, let’s turn to the First Amendment (the one used to justify arguments for “the separation of church and state”) and see what it actually says.
Here is how it begins:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? “Congress shall make no law,” either promoting a religion or prohibiting one.
According to the Constitution, what are the states allowed to do, when it comes to religion (or just about anything else)? The answer is, pretty much whatever they want.
Could a state require that the Ten Commandments be posted in every courthouse? Sure it could.
Could a city or county government install a crèche on its lawn every Christmas? Absolutely.
Could a governor encourage the citizens of his state to call on the Almighty to alleviate drought or do other good works? Without a doubt.
The framers of our Constitution expected the citizens of each state to decide for themselves how state and local affairs would be conducted. Would every state decide the same thing? Absolutely not. Our founding fathers expected differences to emerge between states. Some would be minor, some major. If one state passed laws you felt were onerous, you could vote to change them—or move to another state.
The idea that every law and every rule in every state should be exactly the same as the ones in every other state would strike our founding fathers as the height of absurdity. They believed that differences were good; that competition would reward good policy and punish bad.
The system worked pretty well for more than 150 years. It could work even better today, thanks to the vastly improved flow of information and transportation. If we choose, we can learn a lot about policies and procedures in other states. And if we like what we find out, we can get there a lot easier than our forefathers did.
Instead, we’ve permitted the tyranny of the minority to trample the rights of the majority. Maybe it’s time for the rest of us to demand our rights back.
My hat is off to the Bill O’Reillys, the Glenn Becks and the others across America who are fighting the good fight to celebrate Christmas this Dec. 25, and not just a “happy holiday.”
But I wish they would do more. I wish they would help us take the offensive against the liberal loonies who have gotten their way for far too long. How about a national campaign to explain and then restore the U.S. Constitution? That would be a Christmas present that would benefit the entire country.
And to all the sorry appeasers and retreaters out there, I hope someone roasts your chestnuts in an open fire. Bah, humbug, indeed.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
by Chip Wood
I’ve written before about how upset I get at all the politically correct prissies who refuse to let their salespeople or employees wish their customers “Merry Christmas” this time of year.
Because they’re afraid they might upset someone who doesn’t celebrate the holiday they insist on such mind-numbing platitudes as “Season’s Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.” I hear it over and over again—and always respond with a loud and cheery “and Merry Christmas to you!” Most of time, I get a cheerful “Merry Christmas” right back.
Sadly, the war against Christmas continues to gain ground. Public-school officials at Marysville Elementary School in Wilmington, N.C., decided not to allow the kindergarten class to sing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” at the school’s annual Christmas—oops, scratch that—the school’s annual holiday show. Seems the parent of one student objected to the song because it contained the word “Christmas.” She didn’t want her little tyke exposed to something with “religious overtones.” So the school officials buckled.
What do they do at the public schools in your area?
Meanwhile, the battle against public display of anything religious claimed another victim, this time in Washington, D.C. The new visitor’s center at the United States Capitol contains a replica of the Speaker’s rostrum in the House chamber. It’s an exact copy, except for this change: The actual chair has the words “In God We Trust” engraved across the top. The phrase is missing from the copy. I wonder which scaredy-cat bureaucrat decided on that?
We’ve become so afraid of offending a tiny (but vocal) minority that it’s perfectly all right to ignore the wishes and beliefs of a huge (but silent) majority. I’ve heard this sad situation referred to as the tyranny of the minority. But I think a more accurate phrase is the cowardice of the majority. What a bunch of spineless sissies our leaders have become.
What the Constitution Actually Says
Permit me to rant for a bit about one of the biggest lies the anti-religious zealots have used against us. It is that “the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.”
Baloney. The Constitution requires no such thing.
Let me begin today’s lesson by asking you, what is the most important sentence in the U.S. Constitution?
I would submit that it’s the very first one. Do you remember how this marvelous document begins? Our founding fathers set the tone for everything they believed, and everything that would follow, in Article I, Section 1, sentence one. It reads, “All legislative powers herein granted are vested in Congress….”
A friend of mine who has lectured widely on the Constitution likes to stop at this point and ask: “Are there any math students present? Okay, maybe you can help me out. If ‘all’ lawmaking power resides in Congress, how much is in the Supreme Court? Right, none! How about the Executive Branch? Right, none again. Thanks for your help.”
There’s a very important principle here—one that has been deliberately obfuscated over the past 50 years. A Supreme Court decision isn’t supposed to be “the law of the land.” The Court has no Constitutional right to make law. All it is supposed to do is to decide “the law of the case.” Their decision should be binding on the plaintiff and the defendant … and no one else.
Instead, for most of my lifetime, layer upon layer of additional government has been sanctioned, and even initiated, by the black-robed justices of the U.S. Supreme Court—men and women who regularly and repeatedly ignore the very first sentence of the document they have sworn to uphold.
And let me digress for a moment to note that the very same principle applies to the Executive Branch. What lawmaking powers does the Constitution bestow on the President and all of the cabinets, agencies and commissions he oversees? Again, the answer is none. Yet we get Executive Orders, Presidential decrees, all sorts of new rules and regulations, and now dozens of new “czars,” for crying out loud. Each and every one has assumed powers that are nowhere granted in the Constitution. And no one dares challenge them!
With that as background, let’s turn to the First Amendment (the one used to justify arguments for “the separation of church and state”) and see what it actually says.
Here is how it begins:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? “Congress shall make no law,” either promoting a religion or prohibiting one.
According to the Constitution, what are the states allowed to do, when it comes to religion (or just about anything else)? The answer is, pretty much whatever they want.
Could a state require that the Ten Commandments be posted in every courthouse? Sure it could.
Could a city or county government install a crèche on its lawn every Christmas? Absolutely.
Could a governor encourage the citizens of his state to call on the Almighty to alleviate drought or do other good works? Without a doubt.
The framers of our Constitution expected the citizens of each state to decide for themselves how state and local affairs would be conducted. Would every state decide the same thing? Absolutely not. Our founding fathers expected differences to emerge between states. Some would be minor, some major. If one state passed laws you felt were onerous, you could vote to change them—or move to another state.
The idea that every law and every rule in every state should be exactly the same as the ones in every other state would strike our founding fathers as the height of absurdity. They believed that differences were good; that competition would reward good policy and punish bad.
The system worked pretty well for more than 150 years. It could work even better today, thanks to the vastly improved flow of information and transportation. If we choose, we can learn a lot about policies and procedures in other states. And if we like what we find out, we can get there a lot easier than our forefathers did.
Instead, we’ve permitted the tyranny of the minority to trample the rights of the majority. Maybe it’s time for the rest of us to demand our rights back.
My hat is off to the Bill O’Reillys, the Glenn Becks and the others across America who are fighting the good fight to celebrate Christmas this Dec. 25, and not just a “happy holiday.”
But I wish they would do more. I wish they would help us take the offensive against the liberal loonies who have gotten their way for far too long. How about a national campaign to explain and then restore the U.S. Constitution? That would be a Christmas present that would benefit the entire country.
And to all the sorry appeasers and retreaters out there, I hope someone roasts your chestnuts in an open fire. Bah, humbug, indeed.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Climategate 'tip of iceberg'
Famous weather scientist: Climategate 'tip of iceberg'
'Conspiracy would become manifest' if all climate research e-mails unveiled
The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" says the "Climategate" e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among "warmists," those who believe man's actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change.
"The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years," said Colorado State University's William Gray.
His annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.
Gray was referring to e-mails and other information obtained by a hacker and posted on a Russian web server that included interactions among the world's most influential climate-change scientists.
One e-mail said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Another expressed internal doubts: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."
Gray said, "This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public."
His comments are posted at Climate Depot.com as world leaders are conferencing in Copenhagen to discuss taking drastic economic measures to curb "global warming."
Gray warns that the likely agreements coming out of Copenhagen, the cap-and-trade bill before Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency's decision announced this week to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant "represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development."
"We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth," Gray said. "Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty."
He said he probably would have been concerned about the possibility people are causing serious global climate degradation "had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events."
"There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide … induced global warming disaster," he said. "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.
"These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation."
Gray said there still hasn't been an "honest and broad" scientific debate on the influence of CO2 on global temperature, contending the present models presented by scientists are flawed.
He cited a global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that's "not a consequence of human activities."
"The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate," he said.
Gray launched the practice of seasonal hurricane forecasts. After the 2005 Atlantic season, he said he was stepping down from the primary authorship of the CSU report, turning over those duties to Philip J. Klotzbach.
He's long described global warming as a hoax, telling the Post three years ago, "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
Myron Ebell of the GlobalWarming.org website, where "cooler heads prevail," said the e-mails obtained from the University of East Anglia were "shocking."
"It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.
The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community."
"What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It's very improper," he said. "One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate."
Phil Jones, head of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, confirmed the documents appeared authentic. He has temporarily stepped down while an investigation is taking place.
Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming."
The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.
But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the campaign has been reinvigorated.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary moviegoers and to public-school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.
Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, cofounded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later cofounded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Paul later cited the petition results in statement to Congress.
"Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas," Paul said. "They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."
The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequences of assuming "global warming" results from mankind's actions.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he told WND.
'Conspiracy would become manifest' if all climate research e-mails unveiled
The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" says the "Climategate" e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among "warmists," those who believe man's actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change.
"The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years," said Colorado State University's William Gray.
His annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.
Gray was referring to e-mails and other information obtained by a hacker and posted on a Russian web server that included interactions among the world's most influential climate-change scientists.
One e-mail said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Another expressed internal doubts: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."
Gray said, "This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public."
His comments are posted at Climate Depot.com as world leaders are conferencing in Copenhagen to discuss taking drastic economic measures to curb "global warming."
Gray warns that the likely agreements coming out of Copenhagen, the cap-and-trade bill before Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency's decision announced this week to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant "represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development."
"We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth," Gray said. "Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty."
He said he probably would have been concerned about the possibility people are causing serious global climate degradation "had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events."
"There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide … induced global warming disaster," he said. "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.
"These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation."
Gray said there still hasn't been an "honest and broad" scientific debate on the influence of CO2 on global temperature, contending the present models presented by scientists are flawed.
He cited a global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that's "not a consequence of human activities."
"The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate," he said.
Gray launched the practice of seasonal hurricane forecasts. After the 2005 Atlantic season, he said he was stepping down from the primary authorship of the CSU report, turning over those duties to Philip J. Klotzbach.
He's long described global warming as a hoax, telling the Post three years ago, "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
Myron Ebell of the GlobalWarming.org website, where "cooler heads prevail," said the e-mails obtained from the University of East Anglia were "shocking."
"It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.
The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community."
"What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It's very improper," he said. "One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate."
Phil Jones, head of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, confirmed the documents appeared authentic. He has temporarily stepped down while an investigation is taking place.
Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming."
The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.
But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the campaign has been reinvigorated.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary moviegoers and to public-school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.
Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, cofounded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later cofounded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Paul later cited the petition results in statement to Congress.
"Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas," Paul said. "They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."
The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequences of assuming "global warming" results from mankind's actions.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he told WND.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Obama's Perverted School Czar
Jennings' group made sex between children and adults look normal
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The media is trying to keep this story in the closet, but it's important not to wink at all the serious problems surrounding President Obama's controversial "safe schools czar," Kevin Jennings.
Mr. Jennings is the moral malefactor who gave a speech about how he merely advised a 15-year-old high-school sophomore who was having sex with an older man that, "I hope you knew to use a condom." He knew the boy had met the adult in a bus-station restroom. Mr. Jennings also expressed admiration for Harry Hay, a notorious and extremely prominent supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association. "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay," he said. Despite numerous requests to the Obama administration and Mr. Jennings, we have not received any answers to inquiries about these troubling issues.
Now revelations have surfaced that Mr. Jennings not only thought there was nothing wrong with boys having sex with older men (or girls having sex with older women), but he also played a role in promoting such relationships.
In 1990, Mr. Jennings founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network, which later became the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). He was the group's first full-time staffer and executive director, a position he held until August 2008. One of GLSEN's tasks was to put together lists of suggested readings for K-through-12 students and their teachers. The reading lists categorize books by the ages for which they purportedly are appropriate. The organization Web site reassures us, "All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content."
Some of these shocking readings clearly promote homosexuality and promiscuity. Consider what GLSEN put forward as appropriate for children 13 years or older. Eleven of the recommended books were examined by Scott Baker from Breitbart.tv and re-examined by The Washington Times. Numerous passages discuss kids having sex with adults. Many of the sexual discussions and scenes are too explicit for us to publish, so what follows are greatly sanitized versions.
In "Queer 13," the book describes a 13-year-old boy who has sexual encounters with older men. His experience caused him to desperately want sex. "While my classmates wondered what sex was like, content to masturbate over pinups, I was out there having my [explicit descriptions of having oral sex and being sodomized]. These were grown men I was tricking with. Some were nice, grateful for a young boy to have their way with. Some were harsh and mean. ... That feeling of doing it to them and them doing the same for me was just too damn good."
In "Passages of Pride," a 15-year-old boy has sex with a much older man. The boy says, "It wasn't a bad thing. I didn't necessarily know it would turn into sex. But I knew what I was doing." The boy claims that he was "not intimidated by the discrepancy in their ages."
"Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian" details a 15-year-old boy's relationship with "a much older man." And in "In Your Face," one 16-year-old boy has sex with a 25-year-old man, and another 16-year-old boy has sex with multiple men. Four of the other seven books on the reading list contain passages of children having sex.
The readings try to make sex between children and adults seem normal and acceptable. Being exploited by homosexual pedophiles is portrayed as something that can make children happy and fulfilled. Perhaps Mr. Jennings will claim he was too busy to check what his organization was recommending children read. Either way, this is not a man who should have been appointed by the White House to make schools safe.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Man Made Climate Change In Trouble
Four Colossal Holes in the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming
by John Hawkins
Repeating the words "scientific consensus" over and over and telling sad stories about polar bears does not qualify as "science." So, why is it that the people who insist that Man-made global warming is based on science, not politics, always get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk about the reasoning behind it?
When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of relativity? If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he? Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories.
So, why is it that the people who insist that man-made global warming is occurring right now can't come up with coherent answers to many of the most basic problems with the ideas that undergird their theory?
Climate change has been around as long as the earth: If you listen to global warming alarmists, you'd think the climate had been a flat line until mankind started industrializing, after which the temperature rocketed straight upwards. However, the reality is far different (http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/03/excerpt_of_the_day_can_you_bel.php), as even the New York Times has been willing to admit:
In October, Dr. (Don) Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
So, the planet has had bigger temperature shifts than the one we're experiencing now. It has also been warmer than it is today (http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/rwns_dennis_avery_interview_2.php):
The earth was cooling from roughly 1940-1976 (http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/rwns_dennis_avery_interview_2.php): Despite the fact that widespread industrialization was occurring during that 30 year time period, temperatures dropped so much that there were claims we were going into a dangerous period of "global cooling." If global temperatures are tightly bound to man-made greenhouse gasses and those gasses were being rapidly introduced to the atmosphere, then the earth should have been warming, not cooling during that period. The obvious conclusion is that global temperatures are not nearly as closely associated with man-made greenhouse gasses as some people would have us believe.
So, if it's global warming, why isn't there any warming occurring now? One of the many revelations from Climategate is that behind-the-scenes, scientists who buy into man-made global warming are admitting what skeptics have been saying publicly for years now: The globe has been cooling since 1998 (http://rightwingnews.com/2009/11/george-moonbat-tim-flannery-rattled-by-climategate/). Again, if global warming has its bootlaces hitched to the amount of man-made greenhouse gasses that are being produced and those numbers are increasing, why hasn't the temperature gone up as well? There's a simple answer: Man-made greenhouse gasses are not a decisive factor in raising or lowering the temperature of the earth.
Climate models can't accurately project the weather 100 years in the future: The truth is that we don't fully understand how our planet's climate works and thus, our climate models don't work very well. Since the climate models can't explain the climate over the last 25 years (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm) and they can't explain the leveling off of temperature since 1998 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500327,00.html), why would anyone believe they can predict conditions in 100 years? As computer programmers say, "garbage in, garbage out."
The Doomsday predictions from global warming alarmists are absolutely meaningless because they're based on climate models that don't work very well in the first place. As Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years has said (http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/rwns_dennis_avery_interview_2.php):
I think they pull their predictions out of their hats and I don't think they have any validity whatsoever.
What the global warming alarmists are asking of people is no small thing. They want us to spend trillions of dollars, dramatically impact our economies, and change the way people across the world live for the worse. Those are not trivial changes and simply having scientists -- who've been put under enormous political pressure and make a living off global warming grants – say, "Trust us, it's real," isn't going to cut it for proof. If global warming alarmists can't even deliver plausible answers to the most obvious problems with their theory, then no one should take them seriously.
The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age.
So how can we, given our limited knowledge of how the climate works, attribute the extremely limited amount of warming we experienced over the last century to mankind? The honest answer is: We can't.
by John Hawkins
Repeating the words "scientific consensus" over and over and telling sad stories about polar bears does not qualify as "science." So, why is it that the people who insist that Man-made global warming is based on science, not politics, always get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk about the reasoning behind it?
When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of relativity? If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he? Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories.
So, why is it that the people who insist that man-made global warming is occurring right now can't come up with coherent answers to many of the most basic problems with the ideas that undergird their theory?
Climate change has been around as long as the earth: If you listen to global warming alarmists, you'd think the climate had been a flat line until mankind started industrializing, after which the temperature rocketed straight upwards. However, the reality is far different (http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/03/excerpt_of_the_day_can_you_bel.php), as even the New York Times has been willing to admit:
In October, Dr. (Don) Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
So, the planet has had bigger temperature shifts than the one we're experiencing now. It has also been warmer than it is today (http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/rwns_dennis_avery_interview_2.php):
The earth was cooling from roughly 1940-1976 (http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/rwns_dennis_avery_interview_2.php): Despite the fact that widespread industrialization was occurring during that 30 year time period, temperatures dropped so much that there were claims we were going into a dangerous period of "global cooling." If global temperatures are tightly bound to man-made greenhouse gasses and those gasses were being rapidly introduced to the atmosphere, then the earth should have been warming, not cooling during that period. The obvious conclusion is that global temperatures are not nearly as closely associated with man-made greenhouse gasses as some people would have us believe.
So, if it's global warming, why isn't there any warming occurring now? One of the many revelations from Climategate is that behind-the-scenes, scientists who buy into man-made global warming are admitting what skeptics have been saying publicly for years now: The globe has been cooling since 1998 (http://rightwingnews.com/2009/11/george-moonbat-tim-flannery-rattled-by-climategate/). Again, if global warming has its bootlaces hitched to the amount of man-made greenhouse gasses that are being produced and those numbers are increasing, why hasn't the temperature gone up as well? There's a simple answer: Man-made greenhouse gasses are not a decisive factor in raising or lowering the temperature of the earth.
Climate models can't accurately project the weather 100 years in the future: The truth is that we don't fully understand how our planet's climate works and thus, our climate models don't work very well. Since the climate models can't explain the climate over the last 25 years (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm) and they can't explain the leveling off of temperature since 1998 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500327,00.html), why would anyone believe they can predict conditions in 100 years? As computer programmers say, "garbage in, garbage out."
The Doomsday predictions from global warming alarmists are absolutely meaningless because they're based on climate models that don't work very well in the first place. As Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years has said (http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/07/rwns_dennis_avery_interview_2.php):
I think they pull their predictions out of their hats and I don't think they have any validity whatsoever.
What the global warming alarmists are asking of people is no small thing. They want us to spend trillions of dollars, dramatically impact our economies, and change the way people across the world live for the worse. Those are not trivial changes and simply having scientists -- who've been put under enormous political pressure and make a living off global warming grants – say, "Trust us, it's real," isn't going to cut it for proof. If global warming alarmists can't even deliver plausible answers to the most obvious problems with their theory, then no one should take them seriously.
The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age.
So how can we, given our limited knowledge of how the climate works, attribute the extremely limited amount of warming we experienced over the last century to mankind? The honest answer is: We can't.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Climategate At NASA
NASA-GATE
What's become known as "Climategate" may be about to explode on this side of the pond as well. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has threatened a lawsuit against NASA if by year-end the agency doesn't honor his Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for information on how and why its climate numbers have been consistently adjusted for errors.
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," says Horner, who suspects, based on the public record, the same type of data fudging, manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). "These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
They may have good reason, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD):
◊ NASA was caught with its thermometers down when James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced that 1998 was the country's hottest year on record, with 2006 the third hottest.
◊ NASA and Goddard were forced to correct the record in 2007 to show that 1934, decades before the advent of the SUV, was in fact the warmest; in fact, the new numbers showed that four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.
◊ Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record.
◊This despite the fact that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
◊ Scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on that October's readings at all; figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
Was Hansen, like his CRU counterpart Michael Mann, trying to "hide the decline" in temperatures, asks IBD?
Hansen has said in the past that "heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." What penalties would he recommend for himself and his CRU colleagues, asks IBD?
What's become known as "Climategate" may be about to explode on this side of the pond as well. Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has threatened a lawsuit against NASA if by year-end the agency doesn't honor his Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for information on how and why its climate numbers have been consistently adjusted for errors.
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," says Horner, who suspects, based on the public record, the same type of data fudging, manipulation and suppression that has occurred at Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). "These guys (NASA) are quite clearly determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
They may have good reason, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD):
◊ NASA was caught with its thermometers down when James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced that 1998 was the country's hottest year on record, with 2006 the third hottest.
◊ NASA and Goddard were forced to correct the record in 2007 to show that 1934, decades before the advent of the SUV, was in fact the warmest; in fact, the new numbers showed that four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.
◊ Hansen, who began the climate scare some two decades ago, was caught fudging the numbers again in declaring October 2008 the warmest on record.
◊This despite the fact that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
◊ Scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on that October's readings at all; figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
Was Hansen, like his CRU counterpart Michael Mann, trying to "hide the decline" in temperatures, asks IBD?
Hansen has said in the past that "heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." What penalties would he recommend for himself and his CRU colleagues, asks IBD?
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Pervert Continues To Indoctrinate School Kids
'Safe schools' chief recommends child porn for classroom reading
By Bob Unruh
A new report is raising alarms that the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, a homosexual advocacy organization founded by Kevin Jennings, now head of the U.S. Office of Safe Schools for the Obama administration, is recommending XXX-rated sex writings for children as young as preschoolers.
"We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren't merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between preschoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air," said the report.
One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one's self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview," it advised.
The report was posted online by Jim Hoft at the Gatetway Pundit blog (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/breaking-obamas-safe-schools-czar-is-promoting-porn-in-the-classroom-kevin-jennings-and-the-glsen-reading-list/) after it was obtained from Breitbart.tv co-founder Scott Baker, who said the recommended children's reading assignments need attention.
The team whose members assembled the report said a handful of books from the more than 100 titles on GLSEN's recommended reading list for school children were picked randomly. Writings were reviewed with titles such as "Queer 13," "Being Different," "The Full Spectrum," "Revolutionary Voices," "Reflections of a Rock Lobster," "Passages of Pride," "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian," "The Order of the Poison Oak," "In Your Face," "Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son" and "Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth."
"What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless," the report said.
"Read the passages … and judge for yourself … The language is explicit, the intent is clear," the report said.
WND has reported previously on Jennings' background and agenda, (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114523) including when it was revealed a publisher of "gay erotica" sought him out to write a book aimed at encouraging homosexuality in high schools and colleges.
The result was "Becoming Visible," which opens with, "Why teach gay and lesbian history? … Indeed, as lesbian and gay studies has emerged as a discipline over the last two decades, its dramatic discoveries have shown it to be one of the most exciting fields in contemporary historical scholarship."
Researchers at Mass Resistance reported Sasha Alyson of Alyson Publications sought out Jennings to do the book.
In Jennings' acknowledgments for the book, he writes, "Writing this part of the book has caused me more anxiety than any other. It simply is not possible to express my gratitude to the many people who have helped make this book possible. ... With apologies to anyone omitted, here we go! The obvious place to begin is with Alyson Publications. First, Sasha Alyson had the vision to conceive of this project, and I had the good luck to be the person he sought out to complete it. I am deeply appreciative of being afforded this opportunity."
WND also has reported concerns by Mission America over subject material in books recommended by GLSEN for school children.
The group's Linda Harvey warned, "GLSEN believes the early sexualization of children can be beneficial. This means that virtually any sexual activity as well as exposure to graphic sexual images and material, is not just permissible but good for children, as part of the process of discovering their sexuality."
Her report cited one passage from a book recommended for students in grades 7-12: "I released his arms. They glided around my neck, pulling my head down to his. I stretched full length on top of him, our heads touching. Our heavy breathing from the struggle gradually subsided. I felt …"
What follows in "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian" by Malcolm Boyd is a "graphic description" of a homosexual encounter.
The new report posted on Gatetway Pundit explained the material is what GLSEN wants children to read and learn about.
"GLSEN's stated mission is to empower gay youth in the schools and to stop harassment by other students. It encourages the formation of Gay Student Alliances and condemns the use of hateful words. GLSEN also strives to influence the educational curriculum to include materials which the group believes will increase tolerance of gay students and decrease bullying," the report said.
"To that end, GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims 'furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students,'" the report said. "In other words, these are the books that GLSEN's directors think all kids should be reading: gay kids should read them to raise their self-esteem, and straight kids should read them in order to become more aware and tolerant and stop bullying gay kids."
The organization also offers online links to buy the books.
"We can only vouch for what's in these 11 books, since these are the only ones we've read through," the report said. "Are there other books on the GLSEN reading list that are similarly outrageous? We can't say for sure, but it seems very likely."
The review team said the issue isn't about homosexuality or censorship.
"It's about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children. We're perfectly OK with these books existing and being read by adults; we only start to worry when these books are assigned to children," the report said.
"According to Kevin Jennings and GLSEN, books about a 13-year-old getting 'my c--- sucked and my a-- f-----' are not just acceptable, they're highly recommended."
The website notes, "All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content."
Most of the objectionable excerpts cited in the report cannot be included in a WND report. But among the mildest:
• From "Reflections of a Rock Lobster:" "My sexual exploits with my neighborhood playmates continued. I lived a busy homosexual childhood, somehow managing to avoid venereal disease through all my toddler years. By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory…"
• An illustration in "Revolutionary Voices," shows two Boy Scouts pointing at and looking at two adult men engaged in sex.
• From "Queer 13:" "Soon I was spending a great deal of time hanging out in shopping malls and cruising the rest rooms for sexual encounters."
The report includes links to the original GLSEN promotions of the various books.
On the blog, a forum page participant wrote, "I can, with all confidence, say that's pornography and IMHO not fit for adults let alone children. If you want to destroy a society, this is how you would do it."
"Why is this ------- in the position he is in in the Obama Administration? Obama? Explanation needed. Obama? Waiting … waiting … waiting…" said another.
"After scrolling through that rubbish that seemed to go on forever, I actually saw a positive aspect to being illiterate," said another.
It also has been reported Jennings' organization has included in one of its "lesson plans" for school children a recommendation for the film "Gay Pioneers."
The lesson plan describes "Gay Pioneers" as "a documentary focused on the first public protests for equal rights for gay and lesbian people, staged at governmental offices and historic landmarks in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. between 1965 and 1969, through archival footage and interviews with the participants who are still living."
The report suggests many parents might be surprised, however, to have their children being given messages of endorsement for the activities of Franklin Kameny, Jack Nichols, Nancy Tucker or Randolfe Wicker.
Kameny, for example, is "founder and president of National Consumers Association for the Advancement and Protection of Pornography, Inc.," the report said. And the report also cited the movie's portrayal of Nichols, who edited the pornographic magazine "Screw."
A Catholic leader has questioned why Obama would appoint Jennings to a position of trust over school children.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League wrote, "On September 23, I wrote a news release on the curious moral credentials of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama's Safe Schools Czar: a former drug user and irresponsible teen counselor, he is also a Christian basher.
"What was not known at the time is that he is also a proud member of Act Up, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick's Cathedral (in New York City) in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O'Connor were posted," he continued.
"Now a group called MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of Act Up. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, 'Act Up New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,' currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of 'dialogue,'" he said.
"The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard – that's old hat – the real story is the president of the United States choosing a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor global cooling – he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters," Donohue said.
"Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings."
A YouTube video revealed Jeff Davis, Jennings' "partner," addressing a banquet and saying of Jennings, "He was a member of Act Up. Act Up! So it's like – you know – here's a big gay activist. BIG gay activist!"
The video was removed shortly after the WND report appeared, but Mass Resistance makes it available on the Internet.
According to "The Marketing of Evil," by WND's David Kupelian, Act Up was extreme from its outset:
The defiant, storm-trooper tactics of in-your-face groups like Act Up (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) may or may not have been successful in pressuring the federal government to increase its commitment to combating AIDS. But such tactics definitely were successful in giving activist homosexuals a very bad name.
One infamous incident was the assault on New York's famed St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While Cardinal John O'Connor presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of "pro-choice" and "gay rights" activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of Jesus.
"You bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us!" screamed one protester, while signs called the archbishop "Murderer!"
Then it got really ugly. Scores of protesters entered the church, resulting in what many in the packed house of parishioners described as a "nightmare."
"The radical homosexuals turned a celebration of the Holy Eucharist into a screaming babble of sacrilege by standing in the pews, shouting and waving their fists, tossing condoms into the air," recounted the New York Post. One of the invaders grabbed a consecrated wafer and threw it to the ground.
Outside, demonstrators, many of them members of Act Up, carried placards that summed up their sentiments toward the Catholic Church: "Keep your church out of my crotch." "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries." "Eternal life to Cardinal John O'Connor NOW!" "Curb your dogma."
Clearly, the young movement was flirting with oblivion if it persisted in such ugly, indefensible tactics. It needed a new, more civilized direction if it ever hoped to convince Americans that homosexuality was a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle.
According to Mass Resistance research by Amy Contrada, the Act Up organization also:
• Staged a "die in" at Massachusetts General Hospital to protest the unavailability of PCP drug AP.
• Protested Astra Pharmaceutical Products' refusal to release the experimental antiviral drug Foscarnet.
• Disrupted opening night at the San Francisco Opera.
• Protested design of clinical trials planned by Harvard School of Medicine.
• Jammed phone lines of health insurance database company protesting their use of "sexual deviation" classification.
• Halted Boston's trolley service and traffic in front of Harvard School of Public Health to press the federal government into approving two new AIDS drugs.
Messages WND has left with Jennings' office during its coverage of these issues never have been returned.
By Bob Unruh
A new report is raising alarms that the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, a homosexual advocacy organization founded by Kevin Jennings, now head of the U.S. Office of Safe Schools for the Obama administration, is recommending XXX-rated sex writings for children as young as preschoolers.
"We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren't merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between preschoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air," said the report.
One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one's self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview," it advised.
The report was posted online by Jim Hoft at the Gatetway Pundit blog (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/breaking-obamas-safe-schools-czar-is-promoting-porn-in-the-classroom-kevin-jennings-and-the-glsen-reading-list/) after it was obtained from Breitbart.tv co-founder Scott Baker, who said the recommended children's reading assignments need attention.
The team whose members assembled the report said a handful of books from the more than 100 titles on GLSEN's recommended reading list for school children were picked randomly. Writings were reviewed with titles such as "Queer 13," "Being Different," "The Full Spectrum," "Revolutionary Voices," "Reflections of a Rock Lobster," "Passages of Pride," "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian," "The Order of the Poison Oak," "In Your Face," "Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son" and "Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth."
"What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless," the report said.
"Read the passages … and judge for yourself … The language is explicit, the intent is clear," the report said.
WND has reported previously on Jennings' background and agenda, (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114523) including when it was revealed a publisher of "gay erotica" sought him out to write a book aimed at encouraging homosexuality in high schools and colleges.
The result was "Becoming Visible," which opens with, "Why teach gay and lesbian history? … Indeed, as lesbian and gay studies has emerged as a discipline over the last two decades, its dramatic discoveries have shown it to be one of the most exciting fields in contemporary historical scholarship."
Researchers at Mass Resistance reported Sasha Alyson of Alyson Publications sought out Jennings to do the book.
In Jennings' acknowledgments for the book, he writes, "Writing this part of the book has caused me more anxiety than any other. It simply is not possible to express my gratitude to the many people who have helped make this book possible. ... With apologies to anyone omitted, here we go! The obvious place to begin is with Alyson Publications. First, Sasha Alyson had the vision to conceive of this project, and I had the good luck to be the person he sought out to complete it. I am deeply appreciative of being afforded this opportunity."
WND also has reported concerns by Mission America over subject material in books recommended by GLSEN for school children.
The group's Linda Harvey warned, "GLSEN believes the early sexualization of children can be beneficial. This means that virtually any sexual activity as well as exposure to graphic sexual images and material, is not just permissible but good for children, as part of the process of discovering their sexuality."
Her report cited one passage from a book recommended for students in grades 7-12: "I released his arms. They glided around my neck, pulling my head down to his. I stretched full length on top of him, our heads touching. Our heavy breathing from the struggle gradually subsided. I felt …"
What follows in "Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian" by Malcolm Boyd is a "graphic description" of a homosexual encounter.
The new report posted on Gatetway Pundit explained the material is what GLSEN wants children to read and learn about.
"GLSEN's stated mission is to empower gay youth in the schools and to stop harassment by other students. It encourages the formation of Gay Student Alliances and condemns the use of hateful words. GLSEN also strives to influence the educational curriculum to include materials which the group believes will increase tolerance of gay students and decrease bullying," the report said.
"To that end, GLSEN maintains a recommended reading list of books that it claims 'furthers our mission to ensure safe schools for all students,'" the report said. "In other words, these are the books that GLSEN's directors think all kids should be reading: gay kids should read them to raise their self-esteem, and straight kids should read them in order to become more aware and tolerant and stop bullying gay kids."
The organization also offers online links to buy the books.
"We can only vouch for what's in these 11 books, since these are the only ones we've read through," the report said. "Are there other books on the GLSEN reading list that are similarly outrageous? We can't say for sure, but it seems very likely."
The review team said the issue isn't about homosexuality or censorship.
"It's about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children. We're perfectly OK with these books existing and being read by adults; we only start to worry when these books are assigned to children," the report said.
"According to Kevin Jennings and GLSEN, books about a 13-year-old getting 'my c--- sucked and my a-- f-----' are not just acceptable, they're highly recommended."
The website notes, "All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content."
Most of the objectionable excerpts cited in the report cannot be included in a WND report. But among the mildest:
• From "Reflections of a Rock Lobster:" "My sexual exploits with my neighborhood playmates continued. I lived a busy homosexual childhood, somehow managing to avoid venereal disease through all my toddler years. By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory…"
• An illustration in "Revolutionary Voices," shows two Boy Scouts pointing at and looking at two adult men engaged in sex.
• From "Queer 13:" "Soon I was spending a great deal of time hanging out in shopping malls and cruising the rest rooms for sexual encounters."
The report includes links to the original GLSEN promotions of the various books.
On the blog, a forum page participant wrote, "I can, with all confidence, say that's pornography and IMHO not fit for adults let alone children. If you want to destroy a society, this is how you would do it."
"Why is this ------- in the position he is in in the Obama Administration? Obama? Explanation needed. Obama? Waiting … waiting … waiting…" said another.
"After scrolling through that rubbish that seemed to go on forever, I actually saw a positive aspect to being illiterate," said another.
It also has been reported Jennings' organization has included in one of its "lesson plans" for school children a recommendation for the film "Gay Pioneers."
The lesson plan describes "Gay Pioneers" as "a documentary focused on the first public protests for equal rights for gay and lesbian people, staged at governmental offices and historic landmarks in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. between 1965 and 1969, through archival footage and interviews with the participants who are still living."
The report suggests many parents might be surprised, however, to have their children being given messages of endorsement for the activities of Franklin Kameny, Jack Nichols, Nancy Tucker or Randolfe Wicker.
Kameny, for example, is "founder and president of National Consumers Association for the Advancement and Protection of Pornography, Inc.," the report said. And the report also cited the movie's portrayal of Nichols, who edited the pornographic magazine "Screw."
A Catholic leader has questioned why Obama would appoint Jennings to a position of trust over school children.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League wrote, "On September 23, I wrote a news release on the curious moral credentials of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama's Safe Schools Czar: a former drug user and irresponsible teen counselor, he is also a Christian basher.
"What was not known at the time is that he is also a proud member of Act Up, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick's Cathedral (in New York City) in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O'Connor were posted," he continued.
"Now a group called MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of Act Up. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, 'Act Up New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,' currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of 'dialogue,'" he said.
"The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard – that's old hat – the real story is the president of the United States choosing a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor global cooling – he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters," Donohue said.
"Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings."
A YouTube video revealed Jeff Davis, Jennings' "partner," addressing a banquet and saying of Jennings, "He was a member of Act Up. Act Up! So it's like – you know – here's a big gay activist. BIG gay activist!"
The video was removed shortly after the WND report appeared, but Mass Resistance makes it available on the Internet.
According to "The Marketing of Evil," by WND's David Kupelian, Act Up was extreme from its outset:
The defiant, storm-trooper tactics of in-your-face groups like Act Up (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) may or may not have been successful in pressuring the federal government to increase its commitment to combating AIDS. But such tactics definitely were successful in giving activist homosexuals a very bad name.
One infamous incident was the assault on New York's famed St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While Cardinal John O'Connor presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of "pro-choice" and "gay rights" activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of Jesus.
"You bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us!" screamed one protester, while signs called the archbishop "Murderer!"
Then it got really ugly. Scores of protesters entered the church, resulting in what many in the packed house of parishioners described as a "nightmare."
"The radical homosexuals turned a celebration of the Holy Eucharist into a screaming babble of sacrilege by standing in the pews, shouting and waving their fists, tossing condoms into the air," recounted the New York Post. One of the invaders grabbed a consecrated wafer and threw it to the ground.
Outside, demonstrators, many of them members of Act Up, carried placards that summed up their sentiments toward the Catholic Church: "Keep your church out of my crotch." "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries." "Eternal life to Cardinal John O'Connor NOW!" "Curb your dogma."
Clearly, the young movement was flirting with oblivion if it persisted in such ugly, indefensible tactics. It needed a new, more civilized direction if it ever hoped to convince Americans that homosexuality was a perfectly normal alternative lifestyle.
According to Mass Resistance research by Amy Contrada, the Act Up organization also:
• Staged a "die in" at Massachusetts General Hospital to protest the unavailability of PCP drug AP.
• Protested Astra Pharmaceutical Products' refusal to release the experimental antiviral drug Foscarnet.
• Disrupted opening night at the San Francisco Opera.
• Protested design of clinical trials planned by Harvard School of Medicine.
• Jammed phone lines of health insurance database company protesting their use of "sexual deviation" classification.
• Halted Boston's trolley service and traffic in front of Harvard School of Public Health to press the federal government into approving two new AIDS drugs.
Messages WND has left with Jennings' office during its coverage of these issues never have been returned.
Friday, December 4, 2009
It Really Does Matter
The Fundamental Transformation of America
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,
People said it didn't matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,
people said it didn't matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
people said it didn't matter.
When he admittedly, in his book, said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled to Pakistan , after college on an unknown national passport,
people said it didn't matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology,
people said it didn't matter.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator",
people said it didn't matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record supported gun control,
people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done,
people said it didn't matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing,
people said it didn't matter.
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,
people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,
people said it didn't matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,
people said it didn't matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition
people said it didn't matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,
people said it didn't matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination,
people said it didn't matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,
people said it didn't matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate,
people said it didn't matter.
When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home,
people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,
people said it didn't matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else,
people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs without family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known,
people said it didn't matter.
When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat,
people said it didn't matter.
When as president of the United States ,he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia ,
people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness,
people said it didn't matter.
When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our long time friend,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win,
people said it didn't matter.
When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,
people said it didn't matter.
When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected,
people said it didn't matter.
When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc.
people said it didn't matter.
When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government,
people said it didn't matter.
When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control,
people said it didn't matter.
When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade,
people said it didn't matter.
When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State ,
people finally woke up........ but it was too late.
Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.
If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist. There are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.
Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.
Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , or Iran ; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC .
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,
People said it didn't matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,
people said it didn't matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
people said it didn't matter.
When he admittedly, in his book, said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled to Pakistan , after college on an unknown national passport,
people said it didn't matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology,
people said it didn't matter.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator",
people said it didn't matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record supported gun control,
people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done,
people said it didn't matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing,
people said it didn't matter.
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,
people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,
people said it didn't matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,
people said it didn't matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition
people said it didn't matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,
people said it didn't matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination,
people said it didn't matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,
people said it didn't matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate,
people said it didn't matter.
When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home,
people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,
people said it didn't matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else,
people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs without family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known,
people said it didn't matter.
When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat,
people said it didn't matter.
When as president of the United States ,he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia ,
people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness,
people said it didn't matter.
When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our long time friend,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win,
people said it didn't matter.
When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,
people said it didn't matter.
When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected,
people said it didn't matter.
When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc.
people said it didn't matter.
When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government,
people said it didn't matter.
When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control,
people said it didn't matter.
When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade,
people said it didn't matter.
When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State ,
people finally woke up........ but it was too late.
Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.
If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist. There are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.
Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.
Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , or Iran ; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)