Senators Barney Frank and Chris Dodd put together yet another progressive nightmare for our marginally free-market system. Granted the thought of those two alone in a dark corner is nausea-inducing, that’s not where I’m going. The Dodd-Frank bill, otherwise known as the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” neither reforms Wall Street nor protects consumers (who should really need no protection from anyone but themselves).
This is yet one more instance of self-aggrandizing, big-government bureaucracy all wound together to hopefully get another pair of party-line idiots re-elected. It’s populist in nature but elitist in execution.
One of the less analyzed provisions may very well serve to push jobs oversees – yeah, really. The problem begins in the quizzically-utilized math in the bill. Section 953(b) of this monstrous affront to free-markets:
(A) the median of the annual total compensation of all employees of the issuer, except the chief executive officer (or any equivalent position) of the issuer;
(B) the annual total compensation of the chief executive officer (or any equivalent position) of the issuer; and
(C) the ratio of the amount described in subparagraph (A) to the amount described in subparagraph (B).
Basically, the average pay of all workers in a company, the wage of the CEO/President and a ratio comparing the two.
The intent of this bill is to show income inequality, which is only so great because of liberal initiatives. Unfortunately, it will cause more inequality, but their stats will look better.
Understand the mindset of the American business leader. If this regulation is truly enforced, the only course of action for them to take is to make sure this ratio does not end up higher than their competitors. To do that, they will simply lay-off every single one of their lowest wage earners. They will then outsource that work (the easiest to outsource by far) to Mexico (take a gander at what GM is doing with your bail-out money), China, or India.
This also means those companies won’t have to deal with oppressive health care mandates, ridiculous corporate taxes or whatever new populist garbage comes out of Washington. You have nothing to worry about, heck, 1 in 6 Americans rely on the government for income as it is .. this will just add a few million more.
Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, desires to be known as a Christian. Fair enough, but having decreed the manner of faith by which he shall be known, Obama has by default, also decreed the standard by which he shall be measured. It has been said of many men that if they were charged with being a Christian, would there be sufficient evidence to convict them? Admittedly, living up to the standards given in the New Testament are tougher than ordering one’s life according to the dictates of the Old Testament. So, in the interest of fairness, this examination of the life of one Barack Hussein Obama will only be based on The Ten Commandments.
All verses quoted come from the King James Version of the Bible to avoid any possible discrimination against Obama on the basis of his critics having been given an opportunity to rewrite the scriptures to their benefit in advance of his trial. I am sure Obama would agree with me that the scriptures are meant to be interpreted only – not subjected to the whims of activist judges who can make up make up new or revised commandments as they go along – in effect, legislating from the bench. Come to think of it, adhering to King James is eminently fair because “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2nd Peter 1: 20-21). In essence, we even avoid any contemporary “interpretation” of The Ten Commandments under these conditions.
I apologize in advance to the defendant; given the fact The Ten Commandments constitute a collection of “negative rights”. But some things just can’t be avoided. Court is in session.
Count 1: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20: 3)
Timothy Noah, writing in Slate magazine on January 27, 2007, said ” Is Barack Obama—junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men’s Vogue cover model, and “exploratory” presidential candidate—the second coming of our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Jesus Christ? His press coverage suggests we can’t dismiss this possibility out of hand.” Noah (no relation to the original) then announces that he is inaugurating the Obama Messiah Watch – a periodic feature examining the evidence that Obama could indeed be our Savior, Alpha and Omega, the Prince of Peace, the Lord, the King of Kings – the Messiah.
Obama, himself, alluded to his Messianic powers when, On January 7, 2008, he appeared before the students and faculty of Dartmouth College. Speaking at a campaign rally just prior to the New Hampshire Primary, Obama said “… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote” (for Obama). Several months later, during his nomination victory speech on June 3, 2008 in St. Paul, Minnesota, Obama became even more direct about his supposed Messianic powers. “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” said Obama, sounding absolutely Biblical.
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan had the final say on the matter on February 24, 2008 when he proclaimed “You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”
Count 1 Verdict: Guilty.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20: 4-6)
Obama doesn’t worship any graven image – unless you count the graven idol of him he has constructed for the rest of us to follow. A blogger known only as Tiffany G., hits the nail on the head in “The Idol Worship of Obama“.
Speaking of his desire for us to prostate ourselves before him and cry “We’re not worthy!” Tiffany G. says:
This has always been the difference between the United States and Dictatorships: Idol Worship. Not anymore.
You know, sometimes, when walking down the street, I will see a fool wearing her Che Guevara t-shirt. I loathe her — for worshiping a monster she knows nothing about — or knows everything about, and still idolizes. And then I wonder what it must be like to be a Cuban, whose relatives were slaughtered at his hand — walking down the same street to see his family’s butcher memorialized on a five dollar t-shirt. I wonder what it must be like, for him to see Obama posters rendered in the exact same fashion as Che’s.
One of the closest people to me in life, comes from the former Soviet Union. When he sees this type of depiction — when he sees the Obama shirts and posters — it delivers flashbacks of the Soviet propaganda that plagued every street corner he walked. And invokes horrific memories of the oppression and horrors he endured.
And lo, Obama has chosen to be portrayed this way. In fact, he personally thanked the “street-artist,” Shepard Fairey (appropriate name), who came up with many of the Obama campaign posters you see now.
Shepard’s Obama posters are reworkings of the techniques of revolutionary propagandists — the bright colors, bold lettering, geometric simplicity, heroic poses — the “art with a purpose” created by constructivists in the early Soviet Union, like Alexander Rodchenko and the Stenberg brothers, and by America’s own Depression-era Works Projects Administration. Works on the walls of his studio and on his Web site include depictions of Sid Vicious, Chairman Mao, Noam Chomsky and Vladimir Lenin.
In a thank you letter to Shepard, Obama writes: “Dear Shepard, I would like to thank you for using your talent in support of my campaign. The political messages involved in your work have encouraged Americans to believe they can help change the status quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign.”
Thank you, Tiffany G… Nobody could have said it better.
Count 2 Verdict: Guilty.
Count 3: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Exodus 20: 7)
This one is Bleeping Golden. Or, as Joe Bidenwould say, a big effing deal! An exhaustive investigation failed to find any evidence that Obama has taken the name of the Lord in vain. However, Terry Moran of ACB News did tweet that “Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a “jackass” for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.” In his defense, at least Obama knew whose ass to kick.
Count 3 Verdict: Not Guilty.
Count 4: Observation of the Sabbath
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20: 8-11)
Obama has been conspicuously missing from the pews during his presidency. It’s not like we don’t know where to find him. He’s on the golf course. He’s attending fund-raisers. He’s imbibing the fruit of the vine. He’s eating arugula and buying shrimp while Michelle advises the rest of us to eat cake.
Jury deliberations take less than one minute on this count.
Count 4 Verdict: Guilty
Count 5: Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (Exodus 20: 12)
Okay, we all agree that he wrote a book titled “Dreams of my Father.” That is beside the point. The question is whether Obama honors his father and mother. In Obama’s own words:
“From Dreams of My Father: “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
From Dreams of My Father: “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
From Dreams of My Father: “I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela.”
Notice that even in the quote wherein he specifically mentions his father that Obama doesn’t ascribe specific positive human virtues to his progenitor. Rather, he merely mentions the man’s race. The quotes regarding his mother speak for themselves.
Count 5 Verdict: Guilty.
Count 6: Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20: 13)
This one always sticks in the craw of the progressives. So in tune with the rights of the mother are they, that they totally ignore the rights of the child. There is no way around it – abortion kills the child. So, what is Obama’s stated view on abortion. Why, he favors it, of course.
The Politico unearthed the first evidence of Obama’s stand on abortion in a story published on August 22, 2008 titled “Obama’s lost law review article”. Beginning on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, Obama argues that fetuses do not have the right to sue their mothers for negligence. In fact, he argued that allowing fetuses the right to sue would violate the rights of the mother.
In 1997, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against SB 230, which was a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. Obama, as a U.S. Senator, consistently voted in favor of bills that would expand embryonic stem cell research. In fact, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gave Obama a 100% score for his pro-abortion voting record from 2005-2007. Furthermore, Obama has refused to support any legislation that would define infants who survive late-term induced-labor abortions as human beings with the right to live.
Obama has not killed anyone, but he certainly is an accessory to the crime.
Count 6 Verdict: Guilty
Count 7: Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20: 14)
Can anyone say “Vera Baker?” The National Enquirer claims to have uncovered security camera evidence that Obama and Baker were having an affair. But the evidence has proven to be inconclusive. Of course, if we ignore the evidence and merely judge Obama according to the seriousness of the charges (now where have we heard that phrase before?) he would be adjudicated to be guilty as charged. However, we’re not liberals here and we adhere to a higher judicial standard. Therefore, we cannot convict Obama on this count.
Count 7 Verdict: Hung Jury. Prosecution has the option of a retrial.
Count 8: Thou shalt not steal. (Exodus 20: 15)
Margaret Thatcher said it best: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” True, but how has Obama managed to get his hands on other people’s money in the first place? Simple, he steals it through excessive taxation. The evidence: Obama is calling for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire – in the middle of a recession no less! Obama proposes limiting the ability of taxpayers to itemize deductions, which…drum roll please… will have the effect of collecting an additional $291 billion in taxes over 10 years. Obama‘s position on the Estate Tax would increase the deficit by an additional $262 billion over 10 years – in other words, assessing more taxes. Obama also wants to raise taxes on investment fund manager profits. He also wants to permanently expand a low-income tax credit, expand the child-care tax credit, and permanently extend the American Opportunity Tax Credit – which sounds nice until you realize he can only fund those programs by stealing the money from higher-income taxpayers.
Count 8 Verdict: Guilty.
Count 9: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20: 16)
For those unfamiliar, Collosians 3:9 makes it clear, “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;”
What more can you say about a guy whose lies are listed on the internet? And we are not just talking about a single site:
The preponderance of the evidence is devastating to Obama. The websites listed are not the only ones. I didn’t list more because I simply got tired of copying and pasting them into this article.
Count 9 Verdict: Guilty
Count 10: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Exodus 20: 17)
Obama covets all personal property. His entire socialist agenda of the redistribution of wealth depends on it. For example, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) told CBSNews.com on March 31, 2010 that Obama will achieve his objective of redistribution of wealth through the new health care law, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or face a financial penalty.
Obama fancies himself a latter-day Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What he can’t seem to fathom is that by making the rich poor, he eliminates the ability of the rich to employ the poor – thereby making the poor utterly destitute. But I digress. Of course he understands that principle. His remedy is simply to create a welfare state and force the poor into perpetual dependence on the government for their daily bread. But, having stolen from the rich, there’s nothing left to take, and the entire Ponzi scheme falls flat on its face – hence Thatcher’s quote.
The Obamas don’t restrict themselves merely to theft through taxes. They also steal through living high-on-the-hog on the taxpayers’ dime. Ergo, lavish trips to Spain, Martha’s Vineyard, Panama City, etc., etc., etc… This constitutes theft by conversion.
Count 10 – Verdict: Guilty.
Now we are left to count up the verdicts. The score is eight convictions, one hung jury, and one determination of Not Guilty. What have you got to say for yourself, Obama? It seems the only evidence that you might indeed be a Christian is the fact that there is no public evidence that you have cursed God. That’s not to say you don’t curse God – you just haven’t been publicly caught in the act.
In this court proceeding, a verdict of guilty is actually a verdict that there exists no evidence that Obama is a Christian.
Therefore, Mister Obama, by the authority granted to me by virtue of having presided over your trial, I hereby declare you innocent of the charge of being a Christian. There simply isn’t enough evidence to convict you. However, the Old Testament still has something to say about you and those like you, Mister Obama. In Isaiah 32: 5, 8 we read “The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful…but the liberal deviseth liberal things; andby liberal things shall he stand.” In other words, Mister Obama, from henceforth ye shall be known for what you really are, a vile person.
Getting Ready to head out to Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally
It’s 10pm on Friday and I’m getting ready to join 300+ great Americans in a six bus convoy to Washington D.C. The excitement has been slowly welling up inside me through the course of the day. Towards 6 o’clock it was impossible to concentrate on much of anything else .
I don’t have a tingle running up my leg, but I do have the feeling that I am going to witness something that is of a scale that I have never experienced.
At first, I was considering driving to D.C. in my truck (yeah, it’s a Ford). Then I thought, why not experience the whole thing with a group of people and view the event from other’s perspectives as well? So I plopped down the money, reserved a spot on a bus and am preparing to head to the meeting spot.
This post will be updated over the next 24 hours or so with pictures, audio and video. It won’t be perfectly edited, but will hopefully serve the purpose. The video will be low quality until I get back home with the good stuff, but it should give you a feel for the atmosphere and crowd size. This is my first attempt at remote updating a post especially with media, but I will do everything I can to share what I experience with you.
I hope you will take the time to comment on what you feel about what you see and hear. I will check the comments every once-in-awhile to see if there are any suggestions for questions to ask people, pictures you’d like taken, or what have you.
*Update* 1:32a The entire rally will be shown live on C-SPAN 10am-1:30.
I apologize for it not being totally a live update .. but the mobile web was beyond overloaded with between 400,000 and 850,000 people in the area.
The early birds at bus lineup this morning:
I decided to get to the rally point early so that I might talk to a few folks and understand why others might want to attend. I met up with a great group of Conservatives that were more than willing to entertain my curiousity.
Unlike me, everyone I spoke with had no expectations. They just felt that it was something they wanted to be apart of or that they might learn what they could do that might heal our ailing nation.
At 3:00am the conversation on the bus was sparse and short. As the morning wore on we spoke more and a small group of us decided to hang together (no allusion to hanging separately you history buffs).
As we approached D.C. we ran into .. zero traffic. It was disconcerting for sure. Had my crowd estimates missed on the high-side? Were we headed for a 5,000 person rally that might feel more like a private showing?
Our string of six chock-full buses entered the RFK stadium area and we immediately noticed the mass of humanity at the Metro station.
Many of us had pre-purchased metro passes so that we wouldn’t have to wait in line. After discussing our situation with the polite policeman dressed in semi-tactical gear, we learned there was a special line for us. Mom always said I was special. Those one-day passes came in incredibly useful, I could not thank my local meetup group more for having suggested we all get them.
Those passes led to us getting down to the trains.
We just barely missed the train that was already stopped but the next one was all ours. We were going to the rally without much delay.
A few of our group decided to walk the 4.5 miles instead. Some of the group couldn’t do a fast-walk so I stayed with them and made sure that we all got to experience what would become the most influential, emotional, and powerful gathering of Americans in decades.
The Metro ride was uneventful and we arrived at the Smithsonian station no longer knowing what to expect and observations were all conflicting each other. The traffic was minimal, but there was a huge wait at the stadium metro stop. The train wasn’t all that full, but but the Smithsonian stop was much busier than normal. Would the rally attendance be the weak 10,000 that O’Reilly predicted or would this little band get to witness something historic?
After exiting the Metro we met our first band of anti-Conservative protesters. The massive rally of .. six people displayed their message for all to see. I really wanted to interview them.. to understand why they felt that a speech on the advancement of the American Experiment was such an afront to them. Why did they feel the need to criminalize a man that had no other purpose than to save the vision of this nation as it was presented by the founders? Unfortunately, time did not allow, as we were already late due to odd bus driver swaps on the way to D.C.
As we progressed to the Washington Monument.. the light traffic had us concerned. Had O’Reilly gotten it right I had missed the mark on an historic scale. Well, at least we had entertainment like this guy.
If it hasn’t been obvious, anti-rally sentiment was light. Perhaps the number of absolutely morally-bankrupt liberal-activists is lower than I had feared. As I reported in “Glenn Beck’s 8-28 Rally: The Wager and the Controversy“, several groups were planning counter-protests, rally disruptions, and some even outright violence.
The counter-protests consisted of this guy concerned about Jesus’ air power strategy and the aforementioned six or so young individuals that believe Glenn Beck is the most fearful nightmare we face today. I hope they went home, watched the rally and realized the error in their actions. Protesting this occasion could have had no positive, unselfish motive – none.
As we rounded the left side of the Washington monument, we got our first sense that a crowd was indeed gathering to participate in what I had anticipated as a historic event. We could hear the opening speech being given and were getting anxious to get there. A costumed Captain America waiving a huge American flag was on the Horizon as we crested the hill where the Washington monument was situated and then we got our first look at the sea of Americans – hopeful, cheering and excited Americans – hundreds of thousands of Americans. WOW!!
I cannot describe what I felt, but I’ll try.
I’m not sure what word or sound came out of my mouth when we crested that hill, but whatever it was it didn’t do the sight of 100’s of thousands of Americans set before me. I think I froze for a moment to take in the image, to try to comprehend what I was seeing, the size, the scale, the humanity of it all.
I spent the next hour or so working through the crowd to try to get up into visual range. I knew that I might not get all the way to the front, but I wanted to try.
The crowd was shoulder-to-shoulder, front-to-back. Finding little openings here and there became a challenge, but hearing Sarah talk about her pride in being a soldier’s Mom and introduce some real heroes kept me pushing forward.
I heard Pastor C.L. Jackson describe faith as he was awarded the merit badge . Albert Pujols received the merit badge for hope from a not so eloquent Tony La Russa , and Raul Gonzales presented the merit for charity to John Huntsman and was received by Emma Houston in his place.
As I continued pressing through the tightly-packed group of onlookers, I heard the most rousing speech up to that point. Dr. Alveda King (Dr. Martin Luther King’s neice) gave an uplifting message, “..before honor comes humility.” words that I will reflect on for some time.
Dr. Alveda King gave honor to our heroes in military service and spoke at great length of civil rights and equality – although you would not have thought so listening to Al Sharpton’s assessment of the event. She brought up Dr. Martin Luther King’s assertion that efforts towards equality are represented by a check marked “insufficient funds”. That certainly applies today and in more ways than one.
Perhaps by the grace of God, I got to the spot I wanted just before Glenn Beck made what was unarguably a rousing, emotional plea to save our nation by returning to faith, hope and charity. It had taken more than an hour to reach this spot and I could not have made it were the crowd not so polite, humble, and helpful. With hundreds of thousands of people crowded together so closely, I had expected more difficulty working my way towards the front. I was wrong, but in a good sort of way.
Glenn talked about being at “a cross roads” and that we must make a choice to either be responsible for the rescue of the great American experiment or for its ultimate demise. It’s on us and if we wonder “have I not done enough for my country” .. we should answer, not yet.
I could not be more thankful for having the chance to participate in this event. I met so many great people and probably asked a lot of questions but the discussions were welcome and enlightening from my perspective.
Given that, regardless of where legislation stands, the EPA has been given unprecedented power and we are therefore under constant threat of Cap & Trade, I thought it was time to take a look at one of this administrations front runners for that agenda.
Meet Carol Browner who’s official title seems to be “Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.” I was not able to find an official Bio for her on WhiteHouse.gov, but did finally turn up an office description:
White House Office of Energy and Climate Change
The Office of Energy and Climate Change is a newly-created office within The Executive Office of the President that works to support President Obama’s agenda on energy and climate change. The Office of Energy and Climate Change coordinates and works closely with a host of government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Interior, and others. In addition, the Office of Energy and Climate Change works closely with a broad array of stakeholders to identify new opportunities to create green jobs and transition to a new clean energy economy.
In other words, the whole point of this office and position is to “transition” to green energy. Not green energy promotion or development, but green energy takeover. Let’s see what we can dig up on Mrs. Browner.
In this video, posted December 1st 2008, Mrs Browner makes quite a statement:
At 3:20 Joseph Romm: “She is on the Board of The Center for American Progress and has played a key role in shaping this organization reminding us always that the environment and Global Warming are first tier issues. She’s the key reason the center has been a leader on issues of clean energy and green recovery.”
At 4:12 Carol Browner: “As Joe mentioned, I am on the Board and have been on the Board of the Center for American Progress since it’s conception”
The Center for American Progress is a George Soros funded Left Wing Progressive Think Tank which has been behind many of the policies and staff choices of the Obama Administration. Although their website removed Carol Browner from their list of Staff & Fellows, She does still have a Bio there which states, “She is on the Board of the Directors of the Center for American Progress.”
Carol M. Browner was born in December 1955 in Miami, Florida. Both her parents were professors at Miami Dade Community College. In 1977 Browner received a bachelor’s degree in English from the University of Florida, and two years later she earned a J.D. degree from the University of Florida College of Law.
In 1980 and 1981, Browner was General Counsel for the Florida House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations. In 1983 she became associate director of the Ralph Nader-founded group Citizen Action in Washington, DC.
From 1986 to 1988, Browner served as chief legislative assistant to Democrat Senator Lawton Chiles of Florida; in this position, she worked to ban offshore oil-drilling near the Florida Keys. In 1989 she became legal counsel for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
From 1988 to 1991, Browner was Legislative Director for Senator Al Gore. From 1991-93, she was Florida’s Secretary of Environmental Regulation.
After the 1992 presidential election, Browner served as transition director for Vice President-elect Gore. In December 1992, President-elect Bill Clinton named Browner as his choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); she was confirmed by the Senate on January 21, 1993.
In 1995Browner used her position at the EPA to lobby more than 100 grassroots environmental groups to oppose the Republican-led Congress, faxing out documents condemning the GOP’s regulatory initiatives. In a rare show of political unity, Republicans and Democrats alike impugned Browner, accusing her of violating the Anti-Lobbying Act. A stinging letter to Browner from a bipartisan subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee stated: “The concerted EPA actions appear to fit the definition of prohibited grass-roots lobbying … The prima facie case is strong that some EPA officials may have violated the criminal law.”
Browner headed the EPA throughout both terms of the Clinton presidency, making her the longest-serving Administrator in the agency’s history.
Bestselling author and political analyst Michelle Malkin reports that Browner, on her final day as Clinton EPA chief in 2001, ordered a computer technician to delete all her computer files, in direct violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve those files. When questioned about her actions, Browner claimed that her computer had contained no work-related material, and that she had merely purged the hard drive of such innocuous items as computer games — as a courtesy to incoming staffers of the Bush administration.
It was later learned that three additional high-ranking EPA officials had also violated the court order and erased their hard drives. Because of this, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held the EPA in contempt of court.
According to Manhattan Institute scholar Max Schulz, Browner “was the driving force behind the federal government’s effort to force General Electric Co. to spend $490 million to dredge New York’s Hudson River to rid it of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that — because they were buried under layers of silt — posed no environmental harm.” Some of Browner’s employees ultimately faced criminal charges for falsifying evidence and tampering with lab results.
After her EPA tenure, Browner became a founding member of the Albright Group, a “global strategy” organization headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
In 2006 Browner and her husband, Tom Downey, lobbied on behalf of Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirate-owned company, in its quest to take operational control of six major U.S. ports. They met with New York Senator Charles Schumer in an effort to minimize congressional opposition to the deal. Ultimately the deal fell apart.
Browner also served as a “commissioner” of the Socialist International (SI), the umbrella group for 170 “social democratic, socialist and labor parties” in 55 countries. SI’s “organizing document” cites capitalism as the cause of “devastating crises,” “mass unemployment,” “imperialist expansion,” and “colonial exploitation” worldwide. Browner worked on SI’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which contends that “the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.”
Browner, who has said that global warming is “the greatest challenge ever faced,” calls herself a “strong backer” of “utility decoupling.” Under “decoupling” policies, utility companies will be required to provide less energy, while the government guarantees the companies steady or increased profits through “taxpayer subsidies” and “voluntary” conservation measures.As author Kathy Shaidle puts it:
“In other words, taxpayers will be given grim Carter-era exhortations to put on sweaters rather than turn up the thermostat and be forced to pick up the tab for utility companies’ reduced earnings, while getting less energy in return.”
From December 2003 to January 2009, Browner served as Chair of the National Audubon Society. She is currently a Board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection (an organization founded by Al Gore in 2006); APX, Inc. (which specialzes in environmental commodities markets); the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress; and the League of Conservation Voters.
On January 22, 2009, President Obama named Browner as his choice for the post of Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, popularly known as “Environment Czar.”
In her book Culture of Corruption, Michelle Malkin writes:
“By February 2009, [Browner] had already announced radical plans to declare carbon-dioxide emissions a danger to the public — a move that could potentially subject not just power and chemical plants, refineries, and vehicles, but also schools, hospitals, and any other emitters of carbon dioxide to costly new regulations and litigation.
So from her positions and previous actions I have reached the following conclusion, Carol Browner, a Socialist, feels she is above the law. She will do whatever it takes, the ends justify the means, to accomplish the goal of stopping all conventional forms of energy and forcing green options on the American people, all in the name of Climate Change.
Mrs Browner was very involved with the BP Oil Spill incident on behalf of the Obama Administration. It is because of what her involvement was during this disaster that I cannot call her an “Environment Czar”, the environment was neglected throughout the incident.
“No one in the administration will rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to get back to their lives and livelihoods.”
But we all know this was not the case. Obama rested, while Carol Browner and the rest of the Administration looked for ways to exploit the incident. No one focused on adequate cleanup, no one focused on environmental stewardship, no one focused on containment. Here she is talking about disaster plans and dispersants.
She walks right over Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s requests for environmental protection measures without pause, but claims they are looking into it.
And then the Corexit question, a complete spin job that dispersants are helpful.
Instead of pushing for all available resources being sent to the Gulf and conducting round the clock cleanup operations, Carol Browner was behind the Oil Drilling Moriatorium:
The environment was not adequately protected. The ends justify the means?
She is also a big pusher of Carbon Capture, Carbon Trading, and enforcing Auto Emissions. It is her involvement in the fuel standards/auto emissions policy making that prompted the organization, Judicial Watch to sue for records:
In February, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain documents related to Ms. Browner (who holds the official title of Special Assistant on Energy and Climate) and her role in crafting official U.S. climate policy. Ms. Browner, who was never subjected to Senate confirmation, reportedly served as the Obama administration’s point person in secret negotiations to establish automobile emission standards in California and also participated in negotiations involving cap and trade legislation.
Through our FOIA request filed on December 28, 2009, we’re specifically seeking all records of communications, contacts, or correspondence between Browner and the Energy Department or the EPA concerning:
A. Negotiations and/or discussions among the auto industry, the State of California, and agencies of the United States with respect to fuel-standards/auto emissions for the time period between January 20, 2009, and June 1, 2009; and
B. Negotiations/discussions with respect to cap and trade legislation for the time period between June 1, 2009, and October 1, 2009.
The EPA has failed to respond to these requests in any manner. Subsequent to filing its lawsuit on February 18, Judicial Watch received a letter from the Energy Department (dated February 17) in which the agency denied that it even had any documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. (I’m not sure I believe that!)
According to press reports, Ms. Browner instructed individuals involved in auto emissions negotiations to “put nothing in writing, ever.” The New York Times reported that Browner made every effort to “keep their discussions as quiet as possible.”
And here’s something else to make you nervous about Browner.
Her involvement in these important discussions is particularly troubling given her documented ties to the radical socialist organization Socialist International, which reportedly calls for “global governance” and advocates that wealthier nations should shrink their economies in order to address the climate change “crisis.”
According to Fox News, Browner’s name was “scrubbed” from the organization’s website once she became linked to the Obama administration, but evidence of her involvement (including a photo of Browner speaking to the group’s congress in Greece) remained.
So, here we have an unconfirmed Obama administration official conducting secret meetings and instructing participants to avoid producing a written record. This is the perfect storm of corruption: concentrated executive power with no congressional oversight and no transparency. And this stonewalling on the “Climate Czar” documents adds yet another chapter in the growing Climategate scandal.
Here again, just like the illegal deletion of records under the Clinton Administration, we can see how far this woman will go to hide the evidence of her radical moves, in the furtherance of her radical agenda. Don’t keep records, delete them, hide them, shred them, shhhh.
Clean Energy Leadership from the White House to Main Street
Last year we made the largest investment in the clean energy economy in our nation’s history, which is expected to create more than 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012. These are jobs not just in providing the parts and technology to create power from the wind or fuels from the land, but in manufacturing solar panels, in building the wires and mechanics behind our smart meters, in creating next generation batteries – the list goes on.
Other nations realize that the country that leads the clean energy economy will be the country that leads the 21st century global economy. The President is dedicated to making the United States that country – and is inspired by the small towns across rural America that provide the backbone for this effort. Towns like Macon and Fort Madison can be models around this country, and I’m confident one day we’ll look back to these places as some of the engines of this new clean energy future.
As extraordinary the work that towns like Macon and Fort Madison are doing, these plants can’t solve all our energy challenges alone. But their work is a key part of a comprehensive strategy to move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the President knows we can come together on this issue and pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that will spur a new generation of clean energy industries, create good American jobs, and enhance our energy security.
I find the 700,000 job’s goal laughable because Mrs. Browner refuses to take into account the number of jobs her very intitiative seeks to destroy. The blog also shows that Mrs Browner is dedicated to this goal, no matter the price tag. And all her previous actions show she will carry it out, no matter the jobs lost, no matter the cost.
This week, the Conservative Daily News team decided to focus on liberty. With the 8-28 Restoring Honor rally this weekend, it seems logical that we would focus on a foundational principle of our republic – individual freedom.
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” -Thomas Jefferson: “Rights of British America, 1774″ – The Papers of Thomas Jefferson
Ladies and gentlemen, liberty is under attack – an attack that the Obama Administration has put into overdrive. It did not begin with Obama, but hopefully – come November – we can turn it around and alter our government to get it back in tune with our “unalienable Rights.” I am going to list several of these attacks, many of which are carefully disguised in Cass Sunstein’s favorite term, “Nudges.” First lets take a look through some Executive Orders so we can analyze it straight from the top. [Read More]
Individual liberties have been at the core of our Great American Experiment since it’s beginning. The Federalist Papers and Declaration of Independence make the case that certain rights are inalienable and the Constitution sets down the framework by which they should be protected. President Obama is the master at the helm of a liberty-destroying administration replete with progressive extremists that find the Constitution to be a major obstacle to their self-aggrandizing agenda – precisely the obstacle our founders had intended it to be. [Read More]
..despite the fact the leadership gene is absent from Obama’s DNA, he does happen to rule over us in a despotic sort of way. Frankly, he has the power to restrict our liberties, and has demonstrated, time and again, a desire to do precisely that. America is at one of those hinge points of history – the ending of one era and the beginning of another. It is a time fraught with dangers to our personal liberties. It is also a time of blessing, for the dangers facing us have awakened the sleeping giant that is America’s soul.. [Read More]
It is unthinkable for most middle class Americans that their taxes will increase significantly, but that is exactly what has happened, and will continue to happen. With the passage of program after program aimed at fiscal stimulus, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Financial Reform, the inflation of food prices and the looming cap and trade legislation, taxes will continue to rise to the point of your average family no longer being able to sustain their current existence. [Read More]
Individual liberties have been at the core of our Great American Experiment since it’s beginning. The Federalist Papers and Declaration of Independence make the case that certain rights are inalienable and the Constitution sets down the framework by which they should be protected. President Obama is the master at the helm of a liberty-destroying administration replete with progressive extremists. Obama’s collection of far-left radicals find the Constitution to be a major obstacle to their self-aggrandizing agenda – precisely the obstacle our founders had intended it to be.
While an investigation into infringements upon every right protected by the constitution is warranted, I will focus on those found in the Bill of Rights – the first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States.
Freedom of Expression – The First Amendment
H.R. 5175, The Disclose act – a tool of the left to strengthen the hand of big labor (unions) on our government while weakening the voice of free enterprise. The left position it as a way to limit special
interests from affecting our governance. In truth, it forces any large group that, other than long standing, non-profit groups with more than 500,000, makes a large contribution to a campaign. They basically want to intimidate corporations from contributing while removing that limitation from the liberal’s favorite special interest group, Unions.
The fundamental problem is that Obama and his cronies would gladly squash the right to free speech for anyone that does not further their cause. There is no better proof of Tyranny than this. If you don’t think SEUI and the AFL-CIO are pretty much holding the puppet strings now ..
Right to Bear Arms – The Second Amendment
The current administration does not even understand the workings of the Constitution. At WhiteHouse.gov, we find this little nugget as an attempt to describe the second amendment
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.
No, Mr. President, it does not. The second amendment does not give any rights to anyone. It protects what rights the founders felt were already ours, bestowed by God or nature – for simply being human. The actual wording in the second amendment that pertains to the right to bare arms is
..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The second amendment prevents the government from obstructing, limiting or taking away a basic right. The Constitution does not give us this right, or free speech ,or equal protections .. it prevents a tyrannical government from stripping them away. Changing the understanding of our Constitution is a key tactic if a group wanted to render the document useless. If the population were to believe that the government gave them the rights they have, they might be more willing to cede those rights at the government’s urging. If instead the people understand what Jefferson and company intended, the government has neither the power to give nor take these rights, they are inalienable.
Search, Seizure and Privacy- The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..
Consider how much you say and do using your cell phone and email. Earlier this year, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice attempted to obtain emails from Yahoo without a warrant.
For its part, the Justice Department has taken a legalistic approach: a 17-page brief it filed last month acknowledges that federal law requires search warrants for messages in “electronic storage” that are less than 181 days old. But, Assistant U.S. Attorney Pegeen Rhyne writes in a government brief, the Yahoo Mail messages don’t meet that definition.
Do you even remember what email you might have sent six months ago? I have been emailing Senators and Representatives, media centers and local government officials for years. I shudder to think that the government could collect my past writings without proof of a crime being committed, just so they might then try to find one.
The DOJ failed in its quest to infringe upon our fourth amendment rights as they pertain to email, but they have a clear difference of opinion with the Constitution. In February, the Obama administration made its disregard of our rights perfectly clear (emphasis mine).
..the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
They believe they can track American citizens without their knowledge and without a warrant.
Due Process – The Fifth Amendment
On May 9th, Eric Holder appeared on ABC and announced that he intended to weaken our right do due process by changing how Miranda rights are applied
We’re now dealing with international terrorism. And if we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress to do, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our time and the threat that we now face.
Under current law, authorities may question a suspect prior to reading the individual the Miranda warnings if the safety of the public, the suspect or the officer asking the questions is immediately imperiled. In this situation, the responses of the suspect remain admissible in a court of law.
The case that established the exception, New York v. Quarles 467 U.S. 649 (1984), involved the police having information that a man committing a burglary in a food store was armed with a gun when he went into the store. When the alleged burglar was captured, his gun was nowhere to be found. Concerned that the man could still have access to the missing weapon and, therefore, the capability to hurt someone, the court held that the police had not violated Miranda when they asked the man “Where’s the gun?” and he answered, “The gun is over there.”
Unger’s article goes on to make a point about applying Miranda to foreign terrorists, which I believe are committing acts of war and should not be given these protections, but those in the Uniform Code of Military Justice instead.
I believe the affront is to U.S. citizens. Perhaps those demonstrating or rallying against the government. A slow weakening of the 5th amendment may allow government officials to question anyone they consider a threat just a bit more harshly or differently than the Constitution intended.
Rights of the Accused – The Sixth Amendment
..and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
As this article in the Telegraph points out, the legal precedent has been set.
The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.
Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.
Clearly, the Supreme Court feels that the right to counsel begins at the moment of questioning. Whether or not the accused has been informed of his rights, the right to counsel is immediate. As the article continues Obama’s Justice Department disagrees.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meagre benefits”.
Yeah, that Kagan. Imagine what her opinion of our “meagre” rights will mean once she’s confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Unenumerated Rights – The Ninth Amendment
Obamacare forces us to buy health insurance under penalty of law and a fine. Congress does not have the enumerated power to force us to purchase anything. Any right not expressly enumerated in the Constitution is by default protected as a right of the States or Citizens.
States’ Rights/Federalism – The Tenth Amendment
Between health care reform and the immigration flap in Arizona, State’s rights are being crushed at every turn. The tyrants in the administration believe that a centrally-managed, powerful central government is the only tolerable end. The means are irrelevant.
In this less-than-exhaustive look into the last 18 months of Obama’s administration’s actions, I hope you see what’s happening – what’s coming – what you’re losing.
This is not about clinging to guns or a bible, big companies influencing our officials, or any of the other motives the progressives would have you believe. It’s about those God-given natural and inalienable rights that every free man and woman are born with. They are not awarded to you by the Constitution nor the government, but both should were formed to protect them.
The elitists in D.C. are systematically, calculatingly, intentionally nibbling away at your rights. If you do not stop them at the first bite.. scream not when those liberties have been swallowed whole – you probably won’t be allowed to.
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), or Chartilism, is not as innocuous as it sounds, and America can trace her every current financial woe to it. Developed in the 1920s, and approved of by John Maynard Keynes, it became the hidden standard of our economy when we moved completely to a fiat money system and away from one backed by a commodity. In the simplest terms, MMT is a system in which the wealth creation of a nation is measured by government deficit spending rather than the goods or services sold for profit among its citizens. The only way this type of system is sustainable, is if the government taxes its citizenry to recover the already spent money. Proponents for this system argue that it is preferred because it allows for government deficit spending for (get this) fiscal stimulus in ways not possible under a commodity based monetary system.
For six months last year the Federal Reserve printed money to fund the already passed stimulus plan to the tune of $300 Billion. Additionally, they “bought” mortgage backed securities from the already bankrupt mortgage twins Fannie and Freddie. The Central Bank joined in the fun of buying both, and recently aquired debt by both in US Treasuries and Fannie & Freddie’s paper this past year is a whopping $1.25 TRILLION.
While MMT has been in practice since long before the US abandoned the Gold Standard, it has recently been purposely employed as the current Administration’s fiscal policy. Is it any wonder there has been no budget passed? The real question everyone should be asking is: “How much of my money have they already spent?”
The answer to that is one that most middle class Americans cannot afford to hear. The U.S. National Debt Clock puts each taxpayer’s share at more than twice the median annual income. Without an existing budget, and using MMT as a fiscal policy, Obama’s administration could spend the American taxpayer into several generations with no means of being held accountable. With MMT, the largest missing component IS accountability. Those spending the money are counting on you paying it, no matter how high the bill and no matter how long they continue to spend.
It is unthinkable for most middle class Americans that their taxes will increase significantly, but that is exactly what has happened, and will continue to happen. With the passage of program after program aimed at fiscal stimulus, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Financial Reform, the inflation of food prices and the looming cap and trade legislation, taxes will continue to rise to the point of your average family no longer being able to sustain their current existence. The continued cost of providing for the unemployed and the continued decline of all sectors of the housing market are affecting one in every five Americans. The hole that MMT has dug is a deep dark one, and we are still shoveling away with false hope of finding light on the other side, as long as we keep digging.
Most Americans today have no savings, are unable to put their children through college and couldn’t get a loan for a new home even if the money were still rolling in. The strangling of the US economy, the tightening of regulations on businesses small and large, and the general lack of consumer credibility, have ground national and individual prosperity to a halt. Each new piece of burdensome legislation passed by this Administration adds to a bill that the middle class will ultimately be paying for: or facing bankruptcy on a scale so massive as to collapse the economy completely.
The decline in home starts and record low existing housing sales , unemployment, consumer borrowing lows, and general unrest about the economy are leading to an inevitable Depression era for which there are no currently viable solutions to emerge from. For us taxpayers that means Obama’s probable issuance of a second massive “emergency Stimulus package” and an even dimmer fiscal future for personal prosperity. Make no mistake, there are clear causes of the current credit crunch and nonexistent savings accounts in Middle Class America, and we elected them to office.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
Ladies and gentlemen, liberty is under attack – an attack that the Obama Administration has put into overdrive. It did not begin with Obama, but hopefully – come November – we can turn it around and alter our government to get it back in tune with our “unalienable Rights.” I am going to list several of these attacks, many of which are carefully disguised in Cass Sunstein’s favorite term, “Nudges.”
First lets take a look through some Executive Orders so we can analyze it straight from the top. One thing you’ll notice is that Big Government is key. Anytime he wants an area to be taken over by Big Government he forms a committee or new government office.
These are just a few of the agencies and commitees Obama has created with more to come. What you can clearly see here is the pattern of the Obama’s Administration, to take over every aspect of American life from your city to your gender.
Executive Order–President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to recognize that good nutrition goes hand in hand with fitness and sports participation, Executive Order 13265 of June 6, 2002, is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. The title is revised to read as follows: “President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition.”
Sec. 2. Sections 1 through 5 are revised to read as follows:
“Section 1. Purpose. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), in carrying out the Secretary’s responsibilities for public health and human services, shall develop and coordinate a national program to enhance physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition. Through this program, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Education, seek to:
(a) expand national interest in and awareness of the benefits of regular physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition;
(b) stimulate and enhance coordination of programs within and among the private and public sectors that promote physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition;
(c) expand availability of quality information and guidance regarding physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition; and
(d) target all Americans, with particular emphasis on children and adolescents, as well as populations or communities in which specific risks or disparities in participation in, access to, or knowledge about the benefits of physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition have been identified.
In implementing this order, the Secretary shall be guided by the science-based Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Additionally, the Secretary shall undertake nutrition related activities under this order in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture.
Sec. 2. The President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition. (a) There is hereby established the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (Council).
(b) The Council shall be composed of up to 25 members appointed by the President. Members shall serve for a term of 2 years, shall be eligible for reappointment, and may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the appointment of a successor. The President may designate one or more members as Chair or Vice Chair.
Sec. 3. Functions of the Council. (a) The Council shall advise the President, through the Secretary, concerning progress made in carrying out the provisions of this order and shall recommend to the President, through the Secretary, actions to accelerate progress.
(b) The Council shall advise the Secretary on ways to promote regular physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition. Recommendations may address, but are not necessarily limited to, public awareness campaigns; Federal, State, and local physical activity; fitness, sports participation, and nutrition initiatives; and partnership opportunities between public- and private-sector health-promotion entities.
(c) The Council shall function as a liaison to relevant State, local, and private entities in order to advise the Secretary regarding opportunities to extend and improve physical activity, fitness, sports, and nutrition programs and services at the local, State, and national levels.
(d) The Council shall monitor the need to enhance programs and educational and promotional materials sponsored, overseen, or disseminated by the Council, and shall advise the Secretary as necessary concerning such need.
In performing its functions, the Council shall take into account the Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
Your fat, lazy, and too stupid to realize it, therefore Obama has formed this Council to rescue and make sure your choices are restricted to healthy choices. Will it be through propaganda campaigns, or selective taxes perhaps, maybe even the banning of certain foods because you little people just can’t control yourself. How do you think they will “target” all Americans for getting active in sports?
Executive Order– Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Council).
Sec. 3. Purposes and Duties. The Council shall:
(a) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal level, and among all executive departments and agencies, with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States;
(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;
(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;
(d) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States;
(e) establish processes for continual public input, including input from State, regional, and local leadership communities and other relevant stakeholders, including Indian tribes and tribal organizations;
(f) submit the reports required by section 6 of this order; and
(g) carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President.
Sec. 4. Advisory Group.
(a) There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Advisory Group), which shall report to the Chair of the Council.
(b) The Advisory Group shall be composed of not more than 25 members or representatives from outside the Federal Government appointed by the President and shall include a diverse group of licensed health professionals, including integrative health practitioners who are representative of or have expertise in:
(1) worksite health promotion;
(2) community services, including community health centers;
(3) preventive medicine;
(4) health coaching;
(5) public health education;
(6) geriatrics; and
(7) rehabilitation medicine.
(c) The Advisory Group shall develop policy and program recommendations and advise the Council on lifestyle-based chronic disease prevention and management, integrative health care practices, and health promotion.
Sec. 5. National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy. Not later than March 23, 2011, the Chair, in consultation with the Council, shall develop and make public a national prevention, health promotion, and public health strategy (national strategy), and shall review and revise it periodically. The national strategy shall:
(a) set specific goals and objectives for improving the health of the United States through federally supported prevention, health promotion, and public health programs, consistent with ongoing goal setting efforts conducted by specific agencies;
(b) establish specific and measurable actions and timelines to carry out the strategy, and determine accountability for meeting those timelines, within and across Federal departments and agencies; and
(c) make recommendations to improve Federal efforts relating to prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care practices to ensure that Federal efforts are consistent with available standards and evidence.
Sec. 6. Reports. Not later than July 1, 2010, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2015, the Council shall submit to the President and the relevant committees of the Congress, a report that:
(a) describes the activities and efforts on prevention, health promotion, and public health and activities to develop the national strategy conducted by the Council during the period for which the report is prepared;
(b) describes the national progress in meeting specific prevention, health promotion, and public health goals defined in the national strategy and further describes corrective actions recommended by the Council and actions taken by relevant agencies and organizations to meet these goals;
(c) contains a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States;
(d) contains specific science-based initiatives to achieve the measurable goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services regarding nutrition, exercise, and smoking cessation, and targeting the five leading disease killers in the United States;
(e) contains specific plans for consolidating Federal health programs and centers that exist to promote healthy behavior and reduce disease risk (including eliminating programs and offices determined to be ineffective in meeting the priority goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services);
(f) contains specific plans to ensure that all Federal health-care programs are fully coordinated with science-based prevention recommendations by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
(g) contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under subsection (d) of this section.
So here you have an Advisory Group looking for ways to, not only make you fat, lazy Americans exercise and eat right, but also stop killing yourselves. Your lifestyle is self destructive so we are going to come up with ways to make you stop smoking, make you stop giving yourselves heart attacks (attack on hamburgers? salt? trans fat? any number of foods). The Nanny state will decide how to remove your options either through propaganda and advertising, over taxation, or outright banning.
With cigarettes the attacks have not only been over taxation and demonization, but also restricting locations where you can exercise this liberty. It’s gone so far now that New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg, according to CBS News, “Is looking at a possible smoking ban for all city parks and public beaches.” You would no longer have that liberty in those outdoor locations at all or face criminal charges.
Now some pending Bills. Do you want to serve your country in a way the Government decides? Maybe, Well if this Bill passses you don’t have a choice:
a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.
That’s right, you will be required to serve, regardless of your wishes. That’s not freedom, it’s tyranny.
Also we have the Livable Communities Bill where instead of city & state planning locally, Washington will decide for you. From CNS News:
Republicans Blast ‘Livable Communities’ Bill As Washington-Based Central Planning for Cities and Towns
The Senate Banking Committee passed the Livable Communities Act on Tuesday, moving the bill one step closer to final passage. The bill creates $4 billion in neighborhood planning grants for “sustainable” living projects and a new federal office to oversee them.
Similar legislation in the House has been criticized by Republicans on the House Budget Committee, who charge that “the program’s aim is to impose a Washington-based, central planning model on localities across the country.”
In the Senate version, written by outgoing Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Livable Communities Act would designate $4 billion to aid local governments in planning high-density, walkable neighborhoods.
Premised on helping local governments to combat suburban sprawl and traffic congestion, the bill sets up two separate grant programs. One, known as Comprehensive Planning Grants, would go to cities and counties to assist them in carrying out such plans as the following:
— “(1) coordinate land use, housing, transportation, and infrastructure planning processes across jurisdictions and agencies” and
— “(3) conduct or update housing, infrastructure, transportation, energy, and environmental assessments to determine regional needs and promote sustainable development; [and]
— “… (5) implement local zoning and other code changes necessary to implement a comprehensive regional plan and promote sustainable development.”
The second grant type – Sustainability Challenge Grants – funds local efforts to:
–“(1) promote integrated transportation, housing, energy, and economic development activities carried out across policy and governmental jurisdictions;
— (2) promote sustainable and location-efficient development; and
— (3) implement projects identified in a comprehensive regional plan.”
To administer and regulate these new grants, the bill creates the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities (OSHC) within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The legislation is designed to prod local communities toward high-density, public transit-oriented neighborhoods that concentrate large numbers of people into small geographic areas connected by train and bus networks.
These high-density neighborhoods would be combined with high-density commercial districts that – in theory – would reduce the need for daily driving and commuting.
In describing the Livable Communities Act, Dodd has said that “with sustainable development, our communities will cut traffic congestion; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and gasoline consumption; protect rural areas and green spaces; revitalize existing Main Streets and urban centers; and create more affordable housing.
”So what is this Bill really? An attempt for Washington to take control of local cities & towns and redesign in their Utopian green image. You will not have a say in how your city develops, that’s Washington’s job. They are going to phase out Liberties, force green options, and mass transit. You don’t need a car for yourself, here’s a train.
How about Free Speech? Still have it? That depends doesn’t it. Say you want to write a blog and express your views, sure you can do it, but not in Philadelphia unless you can afford it. Philadelphia has now decided to try and force all Blogs to purchase a $300 business license. From the Philadelphia City Paper:
For the past three years, Marilyn Bess has operated MS Philly Organic, a small, low-traffic blog that features occasional posts about green living, out of her Manayunk home. Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50.
To Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut. In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.
She’s not alone. After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made.
Even if, as with Sean Barry(Another Blogger), that profit is $11 over two years. The city wants some people to pay more in taxes than they earn. “I definitely don’t want to see people paying more in taxes and fees than what [we] earn,” says Bess.
So how do you silence Free Speech? You make it expensive. How many times has Obama attacked bloggers and talk radio? Looks like Philadelphia took the hint and found a solution.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Free Speech for companies as well as individuals. However this ruling did not sit well with Obama at all. All the ruling does is permit companies to advertise for any political candidate they choose, but Obama can’t allow that. He demonized the Supreme Court for this ruling at his State of the Union Address and has been against ever since as you can see in this Weekly Address:
He is warning of “A corporate takeover of our Democracy” yet that is not the case. First of all the United States of America is a Constitutional Meritocratic Republic, not a Democracy. Second, An increase in candidate advertising cannot cause a takeover. Does not an individual have the presence of mind to watch political ads and look into it or decide for themselves? Not in Obama’s Nanny State. On a side not though, everything Obama and the Democratic Party have planned to counter this type of “Free Speech” exempts unions from running campaign ads. Way to double standard.
Do you have Free Speech on the internet? Quite possibly not for long. Though all previous Obama Administration power grabs to seize control of the internet have failed, the Net Neutrality effort is still ongoing, even though their coalition is weakening. From Hot Air:
The coalition pushing Congress to enact Net Neutrality legislation lost one of its key players after Red State questioned its judgment in selecting political bedfellows. Gun Owners of America announced their withdrawal from Save the Internet after it became clear that the group had strong ties to MoveOn, SEIU, and ACORN, among others. STI had bragged about GOA’s membership as a way to paint their coalition as broad based:
A bipartisan coalition in favor of net neutrality has lost a key conservative supporter amid signs that the issue is becoming divisive.
The Gun Owners of America (GOA) severed ties with the net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet after a conservative blog questioned the association with liberal organizations such as ACORN and the ACLU.
The blog RedState described Save The Internet as a “neo-Marxist Robert McChesney-FreePress/Save the Internet think tank” and questioned why GOA would participate in a coalition that includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN.
Why now? GOA claims that the times have changed, and that the Net Neutrality movement has changed over the last four years:
“Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues,” said Erich Pratt, communications director for GOA.
“The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that,” Pratt said.
Er, what? The Net Neutrality movement has never been a grassroots effort aimed solely at private enterprise. It has always aimed at government intervention and regulation of Internet access and network management. That was as true in 2006 as it is today.
Arguably, the issue is free speech, but the problem with that is that NN advocates want government-imposed neutrality on content delivery, which makes sense for a monopoly — but the Internet isn’t a monopoly. (STI still has Parents Television Council and the Christian Coalition inside the tent, at least for now, two groups not known for their opposition to government intervention in speech.) The NN argument treats the Internet as a public utility, an argument that FCC chair Julius Genachowski explicitly made this year, but it’s not, and it’s not even close. Consumers can choose between several different providers, and content handling certainly can inform those choices.
So do you want the Federal Government to regulate the internet? I do not. I want freedom to choose for myself what content I view. But the Left Wing Net Neutrality coalition marches on pushing for government control and less freedom.
How about the Right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment? Even after the landmark case McDonald V. Chicago, The 2nd amendment continues to be under attack. Instead of dropping Chicago’s handgun ban (which never reduced crime, but encouraged it, in my opinion), Mayor Daley has chosen to repeal the ban but add many hoops to jump through before you can own a gun. From the Christian Science Monitor:
Chicago to allow handgun ownership under revised gun law
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is asking the City Council to enact a revised handgun ordinance in the wake of Monday’s ruling by the US Supreme Court that jeopardized the city’s 28-year-old ban on handguns.
The mayor says the revised ordinance will stand up in federal court, should it face a challenge. Early reaction from gun rights advocates is that they are relatively pleased with Chicago’s latest proposal for regulating handgun ownership within city limits, with some caveats.
The Chicago handgun ban, the last of its kind in the nation, fell into a legal danger zone this week, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to every jurisdiction in the US. The ban now faces a review by the Seventh US Circuit Court that will test its validity in light of the high court’s decision, but legal experts, and Mayor Daley himself, expect that the ban cannot stand.
Daley wants the City Council “to move quickly to consider and enact” the redrafted ordinance, he told reporters Thursday. The council is expected to meet Friday to debate the measure and take a vote.
Gun rights advocates are “cautiously optimistic” about the proposal, says Alan Gura, a lawyer in Alexandria, Va., who was on the winning side in the latest Supreme Court case and in a 2008 case the resulted in the overturning of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
“This is a far more measured and careful response than what was rumored, and we appreciate that,” says Mr. Gura.
New rules of gun ownership
The new ordinance would establish a multitier process requiring gun owners to register their firearms with the Chicago Police Department, attend classroom and firing range training, and obtain both a special city permit and a state firearms identification card.
The fees associated with those requirements are not inconsequential, says Gura. The city permit, for instance, would cost $100 and would require renewal every three years. Each handgun would need to be reregistered every year at $15 each. Penalties for failing to register a firearm could cost owners up to $10,000 and jail time.
It is normal to charge fees for registering guns, says Gura. But “when fees are imposed on a recurring basis, then it becomes an annual tax on an exercise of a constitutional right,” he says. “We don’t think that’s appropriate, so that can be a sticking point with us.”
Rifle owners have long complained about Chicago’s annual registration process, which can take up to six months each year.
“It can take so long … no one can get through all the hoops,” says Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. Mr. Pearson says he is tracking what form of the ordinance the Chicago City Council approves on Friday, to determine if it needs to be challenged.
“I’m glad we’re seeing some movement on it. We’ll have to test the constitutionality of [what they] are proposing later,” he says.
A ban on gun shops questioned
The proposed ordinance also prohibits assault weapons and gun shops. Gura considers the latter ban “extreme” and says it is no different than if the government decided it wanted to ban the sale of books it determined were not in its favor.
“To say there can be no commerce in something that is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution is troubling,” he says.
Daley says all aspects of the ban are constitutionally sound because they focus on gun ownership in the home, which is what the high court declared to be protected by the Second Amendment. Guns are “for self-defense and self-defense only,” he added, and if people were really committed to gun safety, they would start by not owning guns.
“Although people have a constitutional right to have a handgun in their home … the best way to avoid firearm-related injuries and deaths is to not have a gun in the home in the first place,” he says.
So, you can have a gun, but we will determine what kind and only if you can afford our massive fees. Oh, you can’t afford it? Oh well, sorry no gun for you but hey, at least we gave you the opportunity, even though we forbid them to be sold here.
How about Washington D.C. where a preacher was arrested for answering a security guards question about weapons, saying yes, he had two pistols under his seat. From Johnson City Press:
Pistol-packing preacher protests arrest; DC police confiscate guns
For the rest of his life Pastor William Duncan of Caldwell Springs Baptist Church will remember the Fourth of July as the day he lost his freedom.
“I learned our freedoms can be taken away in a heartbeat,” the 64-year-old Duncan said of the ordeal he encountered in Washington, D.C., when he was arrested in front of his shocked family and forced to spend last month’s Fourth of July weekend in the city’s jails.
The nightmare for the entire Duncan Family began with a trip to the nation’s capital to celebrate Independence Day and enjoy the spectacular fireworks show on the Mall.
Duncan had been to Washington a few times in the past but his wife, Carolyn, had never been there. Accompanying them were their daughter, son-in-law and his 4-year-old granddaughter and 9-month-old grandson. Duncan’s daughter is a police officer, and her husband is a federal agent.
The family’s ordeal began when they reached the hotel’s parking garage, which is shared with a Federal Emergency Management Agency building. A security guard at the parking garage entrance asked if Duncan had any weapons. Duncan said he carried two Smith and Wesson pistols under his seat.
Unaware that his Tennessee handgun carry permit was not valid in the District of Columbia, Duncan was surprised when police were called. He was even more surprised by the belligerent attitude of the officer in charge. Surprise became shock when federal agents and a Special Weapons and Tactics team arrived. The street in front of the hotel was blocked off.
“It looked like the middle of New York City and they had just arrested Osama bin Laden,” Duncan said.
Duncan’s federal agent son-in-law attempted to help him. He identified himself and explained the family was in town to celebrate Independence Day and that Duncan was a Baptist preacher and not a terrorist.
Soon the federal officers were satisfied there was no threat and left. The hotel security people said they did not have a problem and offered to store Duncan’s guns in the hotel safe during his stay.Most of the police also seemed satisfied that Duncan was not a threat. The one exception was the officer in charge.
“You know what you have done, you will have to go to jail,” the officer told him.
At the police station, the officer grilled Duncan about the reason for carrying two big guns.
“I told them I have arthritis and two bad shoulders. If someone attacked my family there was no other way I could protect them,” Duncan said.
The officer said he did not think it was likely anyone would attack him or his family. Duncan then told them the story of the Lillelid Family, who were traveling to a Jehovah’s Witness convention in Johnson City in 1997 when the four members of the family were shot at a rest stop. Only the 2-year-old son survived the shootings and he was left orphaned and permanently disabled.
“What would happen if someone like those thugs attack me and my family? The Lord said a man who won’t protect his family is worse than an infidel,” Duncan said.
After the questioning, Duncan was given his one call to his family. He told them he was being held without bond and he hoped to see them on Monday at his court hearing.
After a weekend in jail, Duncan took comfort when a public defender assured him his case would be dropped.
Duncan was quickly released on his own recognizance. He was allowed to return home and the case was dismissed three weeks later.
His problems are not yet over. Duncan wants the case expunged from his record and his guns returned.
Constitutionaly this man committed no crime. Locally however is another matter. His Right to bear arms did not carry over from Tennessee to Washington D.C. As our Rights come from God and not Government, Washington D.C is infringing on that Right and sent this man to jail for nothing. Notice the officer’s statement. It’s not likely anyone will attack you, you don’t need guns. How can anyone ever know if and when they will be attacked? Only prevention is preparedness, which is what this Pastor was arrested for. To add insult to injury they confiscated his weapons and have not returned them as of yet.
Do you have the freedom to work where you choose and get promoted based on Merit and Character? That depends on where you work and what type of job it is. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.
The Obama administration decided they didn’t trust the industry, and didn’t trust themselves, so you cannot work providing oil to the United States. Instead we will buy more from our enemies and complain about it. The Government decided for you that this industry is dangerous, regardless of how necessary it may be to energy production and the economy.
We also know now that General Motors used race and sex as factors in deciding which dealerships to close according to the Inspector General. And we recently learned that the Financial Reform Bill had within it diversity hiring quotas. From CNS News:
Financial Reform Bill Passed by House Would Create ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion’ in Every U.S. Financial Regulatory Agency
The financial regulations package recently passed by the House of Representatives would create a new diversity overseer at each of the major federal financial regulatory agencies, including the new ones created by the legislation itself.
This new office, called the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, would take over from any existing diversity or civil rights office already working at the agencies in question.
It would also be responsible for making sure that each of the major federal financial regulators is hiring enough minorities and women, and contracting with enough minority-owned and women-owned businesses.
However, each individual diversity czar is responsible for defining exactly how many minorities, women, and minority- and women-owned businesses are satisfactory.
“[E]ach agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities,” the legislation says. (The bill passed in the House on June 30; a Senate vote could occur as early as next week.)
In fact, each new diversity chief will be responsible for developing quota-like guidelines proscribing the ethnic and gender makeup of each regulator’s workforce, including upper management.
“Each Director shall develop standards for- (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the work-force and senior management of the agency,” it states.
These diversity offices will also be responsible for “assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.”
This means that in addition to monitoring every bank in the country, checking every financial institution in America to make sure they are not doing anything systemically risky, and trying to prevent another financial collapse, every federal financial regulator will also be counting the number of minority and female employees at banks and investment firms, big and small.
The proposed law would also mandate that federal financial regulators hire from certain types of minority- or women-only colleges and universities, advertise in minority- and women-focused publications, and partner with inner-city schools and other minority-focused organizations to hire or mentor more minorities and women.
The diversity offices will also be charged with enforcing the newly written diversity guidelines for each private sector company the regulator contracts with, meaning that they will be checking to ensure that each of the agency’s private contractors is following the agency’s diversity guidelines.
“The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts,” the bill states.
This provision is significant because some of the same federal regulators who must establish these diversity offices – Treasury and Federal Reserve – make heavy use of the private sector on a regular basis. They have also relied heavily on the private financial sector in their responses to the financial crisis.
For example, the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility (TALF) program, which backstopped the securitization market during the height of the financial crisis, was actually run with the help of Bank of New York Mellon, an institution regulated by the New York Fed.
The TALF program, along with other Fed lending programs, had to maintain a strict level of secrecy to protect the banks using the program from irrational runs on their businesses. Because the securitization market had essentially collapsed, TALF’s customers had to remain anonymous if the government was to avoid setting an arbitrary – rather than market – price for securitized debt.
Had the markets learned which financial institutions were using Fed lending programs like TALF, they would have known which securities the Fed was taking as collateral for a particular loan amount. With such information in the public domain, the government would have essentially been fixing the price of asset-backed securities, rather than letting supply and demand set the price in the normal way.
The new diversity office at the Fed – and other financial regulators – apparently would be empowered to dig into such sensitive relationships under the guise of diversity enforcement, possibly endangering the programs and hamstringing their effectiveness.
If one of the new diversity czars thinks a financial firm is not being diverse enough, he potentially could recommend that the regulator terminate the contract(s) the regulator has with that firm.
So how does this translate? Your a white male, top of your class in accounting and economics and you can’t be hired. Maybe your a Black male and a genius, sorry no job for you, we need females. The position will go to the best candidate that fills the racial or sex based quota. It doent matter how qualified you are, it matters whether or not you are a man or a woman and what color your skin happens to be. A private firm might not meet the diversity quota, but can’t afford to hire anyone else, so what are it’s options? Lose the contract or fire and replace as many as necessary for diversity. That’s not equality.
How about the freedom to handle your own garbage? Depends on where you live now, but just might spread. Cleveland now has a special way of monitoring your garbage and how often you recycle. And Cleveland is not alone. From Cleveland.com:
High-tech carts will tell on Cleveland residents who don’t recycle … and they face $100 fine
It would be a stretch to say that Big Brother will hang out in Clevelanders’ trash cans, but the city plans to sort through curbside trash to make sure residents are recycling — and fine them $100 if they don’t.
The move is part of a high-tech collection system the city will roll out next year with new trash and recycling carts embedded with radio frequency identification chips and bar codes.
The chips will allow city workers to monitor how often residents roll carts to the curb for collection. If a chip show a recyclable cart hasn’t been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables.
Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine, according to Waste Collection Commissioner Ronnie Owens. Recyclables include glass, metal cans, plastic bottles, paper and cardboard.
City Council on Wednesday approved spending $2.5 million on high-tech carts for 25,000 households across the city, expanding a pilot program that began in 2007 with 15,000 households.
The expansion will continue at 25,000 households a year until nearly all of the city’s 150,000 residences are included. Existing carts might be retrofitted with the microchips.
“We’re trying to automate our system to be a more efficient operation,” Owens said. “This chip will assist us in doing our job better.”
The chip-embedded carts are just starting to catch on elsewhere. The Washington, D.C. suburb of Alexandria, Va., earlier this year announced it would issue carts to check whether people are recycling.
Some cities in England have used the high-tech trash carts for several years to weigh how much garbage people throw out. People are charged extra for exceeding allotted limits.
Your trash can will now decide if you are recycling enough or not and have you fined accordingly. You are being nudged right in your own home and monetarily punished if you do not comply.
How about the Right to Privacy? This right is being shredded. Apparently you no longer have the right to privacy of location. The Government is not wrong to track and follow anyone at anytime with or without a warrant. From Yahoo News/Time:
The Government’s New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway – and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre – and scary – rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants – with no need for a search warrant.(See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision – one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle’s underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA’s actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno’s privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the “curtilage,” a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government’s intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno’s driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month’s decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people’s. The court’s ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. “There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist,” he wrote. “No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter.” The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of “cultural elitism.” (Read about one man’s efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state – with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit’s – including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s pro-privacy ruling was unanimous – decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. “1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last,” he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell’s totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: “Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.”
So the Federal Government can,based on a whim or suspicion without any warrant, monitor where your personal location at all times with no justification necessary. Let us hope the Supreme Court overturns this one or we will be living 1984.
Court Fails to Protect Privacy of Whistleblower’s Email
Today the Eleventh Circuit issued an unfortunate amended decision in Rehberg v. Hodges. The case arose from an egregious situation in which, among other misconduct, a prosecutor used a sham grand jury subpoena to obtain the private emails of whistleblower Charles Rehberg after he brought attention to systematic mismanagement of funds at a Georgia public hospital.
The Court held that Mr. Rehberg’s privacy interest in his emails held by his ISP was not “clearly established” and therefore his claim against the prosecutors could not proceed. The Court relied on a legal doctrine called qualified immunity, which holds that lawsuits against government officials for violations of constitutional rights cannot proceed unless those rights were “clearly established” at the time. The Court declined to rule on whether individuals have a privacy interest in the content of their emails.
We’re disappointed in this decision. Not only is it wrong for Mr. Rehberg, who had his emails turned over to a prosecutor based on a sham subpoena, but it’s troubling for the millions of individuals in the Eleventh Circuit who have their email stored with ISPs. Our most sensitive and private thoughts, ideas and correspondence are contained in our emails. The Fourth Amendment requires judicial supervision (usually a warrant) before the government can access your personal papers in order to protect against just the sort of abuse that Mr. Rehberg suffered — a rogue government official seeking to get your emails from your ISP with no court oversight and then turning it over to others who seek to harm you.
While the decision is very bad news for Mr. Rehberg, the Court did take the opportunity to correct some erroneous analysis in the panel’s previous decision. The earlier decision had held that the Fourth Amendment did not apply at all once an email was received by your ISP. The Court had written that a “person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails, at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party” and that “Rehberg’s voluntary delivery of emails to third parties constituted a voluntary relinquishment of the right to privacy in that information.” This is not the law, and the incorrect statements are no longer precedent. In other words, the Court did not rule out the possibility that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your email. That is useful and will be important to other cases moving forward, as law professor Paul Ohm, who wrote an amicus brief in the case, has noted.
However, the Court did not rule that there was privacy protection for your emails either. Rather than embracing the obvious conclusion that our constitutional protections need to be recognized for email content, the court ducked the question, claiming that email is simply too new a technology for them to decide whether the Constitution applies. With all due respect, email is far too important to the daily lives of millions of Americans for its constitutional status to be unclear. Email content must be protected by the Fourth Amendment whether stored with an ISP or not. It’s long past time that the courts recognize that the constitutional privacy protections for our “papers” still apply when they are in digital form.
So two different Circuit Courts have voted against your Right to Privacy in two different ways, both of which are a blow to freedom. Makes this scenario all the more realistic:
These are not all the attacks ongoing on our freedoms, I cannot keep up with them all, but Big Government keeps growing, which means Rights, freedoms, and liberties will shrink and be infringed. The Principles of freedom cannot coexist with a Big Progressive Government. We can only hope for a significant victory in November to turn this tide around before we lose all of our Liberties.
“So, what do you know about protocols?” asked the Vice President of Engineering for a network engineering company. It was the mid-1980s, and I wanted a job. I was clueless – it sounded Greek to me. I was so clueless that I didn’t even realize it was Geek, not Greek. So I answered his question the only way I could. I looked the man straight in the eye, opened my mouth and removed all doubt. “I can be nice to anybody,” I replied. He hired me anyway.
Decades later America needed a president. “So, what do you know about running a country?” asked the voters. It was 2008 and he wanted a job. He was so clueless that it sounded foreign to him. He was so utterly clueless that he didn’t even realize it was representative government the voters were talking about – not tyranny. So he answered the question the only way he could. He looked America straight in the eye, opened his mouth, and removed all doubt. “I’ve been a Community Organizer,” he answered proudly. We hired him anyway.
In Washington, where Congress rules,
Are few brave men, and countless fools.
The laws we live by, and each new bill,
Are decreed to us by the fools on The Hill.
Back in the 1970s, I was studying print journalism at a large university. PCs hadn’t yet been invented; even the Osbourne 1 wasn’t introduced until 1981. The student newspaper’s computer system consisted of a PDP-8/PDP-11 cluster and a fine assortment of VDT-100 dumb terminals. I was the newspaper’s Sports Editor. The school’s basketball coach and I didn’t get along. Officially, we hated each other, but had kept our feud at a simmer. That was about to change.
One day I wrote a glowing, wonderful, sickeningly sweet story about the basketball coach. I gushed in my praise of the man. If the story had arms, it would have thrown rose pedals at the coach’s feet when he read it. But I made the mistake of letting my true feelings about the man show through in the name I gave the story’s file on that computer system. I laid out the story on the front page of the sports section and went home to bed. During the evening, the Night Editor needed another story for the front page. He swiped my article about the basketball coach and plopped it right at the top of the front page. The only problem was that the story was too long for the space allotted to it on the front page. So he had to “jump” the story to another page. Unfortunately for me, he didn’t notice the filename. Even later that night, the newspaper’s typesetter began his work on the front page. At the end of the text that fit on Page 1 he referred to my filename and used it as the reference for the page jump – “See Sleaze on Page 14.” Then on Page 14, in nice huge 48-point type, the story continued with the headline “Sleaze”. The coach and I never spoke to each other again.
During 1985 Barack Hussein Obama moved to Chicago. It didn’t take him long to become associated with black militants and other assorted leftists in the Windy City. He found work as a Community Organizer for the “Industrial Areas Foundation” (IAF), which had been founded by the Marxist radical Saul Alinsky. Obama also worked with several other radical groups in Chicago including Alinsky’s “Developing Communities Project” (DCP), of which he was named Director; the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN); and Project Vote. Acorn was founded by Wade Rathke, who was an associate of the Weather Underground’s William Ayers. Obama made yet another connection to William Ayers when he received funding from the Woods Fund of Chicago – a group to which Ayers reportedly had connections.
Obama’s connections to the radical Chicago scene were further strengthened in 1989 when he became acquainted with Michelle Robinson, who worked at the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin. Reportedly, the owner of that law firm was a friend of…drum roll please…William Ayers. Another drum roll…also working at Sidley Austin was Bernadine Dohrn, who had planted a bomb at a police station in San Francisco in 1970 that killed a policeman and partially blinded another police officer, according to an FBI Report. Of course, we are all familiar with the affinity Ayers and Dohrn have for explosives. Their targets included the U.S. Capital Building, the Pentagon, and New York City Police Headquarters, among others.
In 1992 Obama and Michelle Robinson were married by their spiritual mentor – the Rev. Jeremiah Wright – still another connection to a Chicago radical. Rimshot!
In 1995 Ayers launched yet another radical organization, an education foundation named the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. One of the grants awarded by the foundation went to an organization run by Mike Klonsky, a former head of the Marxist-Leninist Community Party of America. Obama was named the first Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a position he held until 1999. The Obama campaign issued a statement in response to a query from Stanley Kurtz of the National Review Online in which, the campaign claimed, Ayers was not involved with the recruitment of Obama to the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And in April of 2008, Obama attempted to distance himself from Ayers, claiming that Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis.” Yeah, sure, and the sun doesn’t rise in the East. Does the word “Sleaze” ring a bell?
Now we have seen Obama’s Chicago-style politics play out at the national level for more than a year and a half. We have been exposed to the sleazy way health-care reform was legislated. We have witnessed extravagant vacations on the taxpayers’ dime. We have watched takeovers of major corporations, and the creation of a gigantic slush fund, the magnitude of which has never before been seen in American politics. We get the uneasy feeling that just possibly, people with connections to the administration are personally profiting from all the sleaze.
The retirement plan for Tammy Faye,
Bears no resemblance to a 401K.
And then there is the case of Vera Baker, who allegedly engaged in an affair with Barack Obama. Baker has a professional background in political fundraising. With a business partner, Muthoni Wambu, Baker founded Baker Wambu & Associates during 2000. This fundraising firm signed on as a fundraiser for the Congressional Black Caucus. Baker developed a professional relationship, no pun intended, with Obama and joined his 2004 campaign staff for his Illinois Senate campaign as Finance Director. The National Enquirer later ran a story claiming evidence of an affair between Baker and Obama had been caught on a security video. Hill Buzz, though, expressed doubt that the affair ever took place. “We never believed Obama had an affair with a woman, because Obama does not appear to like women,” reported Hill Buzz. Continuing on, the Hill Buzz story further noted “As American Standard recently wondered, there are no former girlfriends, either on the scene or noted in any of the books William Ayers or Jon Favreau wrote for Obama. No high school girlfriends. No college sweethearts. But, there sure are plenty of men he’s spent an odd amount of time with.” Now, I am certainly not accusing Obama and Baker of having an affair. And I am not accusing Obama of being homosexual. I do not possess information to support contentions such as those. But the National Enquirer raised the question about a potential affair, and as far as I know, Vera Baker has denied that an affair ever took place, but Obama has not commented on the subject. Regardless, rumors swirled around the Obama campaign on this subject and you can easily dredge up information on this topic by Googling it.
The problem here may have nothing to do with impropriety, but the perception of impropriety has given the Vera Baker story legs, so to speak.
“Is nothing sacred?” asked the Hart.
Who read the Bible, but skipped one part.
A little verse regarding vice,
That admonished restraint with Donna Rice.
Now we are approaching the 2010 midterm elections. All indications are that the Democrats are going to suffer a defeat for the ages in November. Rumors and political analyses abound about the possibility of the Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives, and perhaps, even the United States Senate. What’s more, political pundits are beginning to speculate that Obama could even resign before the end of his first term – a theory I don’t believe for a heartbeat. Obama finagled his way to the highest political office of the land. I can’t believe he isn’t going to see it through. Power is intoxicating and he’s drinking it up from the public trough.
There are more rumors that he will be impeached. If the Republicans win back Congress, that certainly becomes a possibility. But, I predict, that even if an attempt is made in that direction, that it will fail. I suppose it all depends on what the definition of the word “sleaze” is. Shades of Clinton come to find.
Finally, the rumor mill is grinding away at the possibility that Obama won’t run for a second term. Once again, I don’t believe it. Yes, Obama uttered words to the effect that he would rather be a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. But honesty, do you believe him. I mean, it’s not like, allegedly, he has ever been caught in a lie before – note the legal disclaimer.
Now, why would the main stream media and the blogosphere both be discussing a) Obama quitting before his first term is over, b) impeachment, and c) pulling an LBJ and declining to run for a second term? The answer is that the majority of Americans can now clearly see the failure of the Obama presidency. The sleaze and corruption are shining through. The incompetence is inescapable. The arrogance is as obvious as his upturned nose. Obama’s lack of personal ethics is stunningly apparent. The corruption of Congress is plain to see – the most ethical Congress ever. The deliberate attempts to cut America down to size are infuriating patriots from sea to shining sea. Unlike me, Obama apparently doesn’t have the ability to be nice to everybody. He is a fraud. He is clueless. And his arrogance doesn’t allow him to see himself for what he really is. Therefore, I believe that Obama will indeed run for a second term. And just like the 2010 midterms, the Democrats are going to suffer a second rousing defeat in 2012 because of Obama. In the meantime, Obama will put America through Hell. Heaven help us until the day he leaves office, voluntarily or otherwise.
So back to Denver in his shame,
A candidate now, but just in name.
A lesson learned. A battle fought.
What fun he had, but he got caught!
In the interest of clarity, I must disclose that I wrote all of the poetry in this column during the 1980s. I started tinkering around with political satire poetry in 1986 and the verses in this column are extracted from unpublished poems I wrote surrounding events from that era including the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker PTL business empire collapse, Gary Hart’s alleged affair with Donna Rice, and a generic poem about Congress. Other than these extracts, the balance of those poems will never see the light of day – though I grin every time I recite them in my mind.
Our current Attorney General, Mr. Eric Holder has been active just behind the scenes in our Government in Politics for many years. He has been instrumental in President Clinton’s pardoning of terrorists, taken a position against the 2nd amendment, twists the first amendment, as well as calling Americans “cowards” about race. When chosen by Obama to be the Attorney General Eric Holder gave the following speech.
“We look forward to actually restructuring policies that are both protective and consistent with who we are as a nation. ”
“I also look forward to working the men and women of the Department of Justice to revatialize the depts efforts in those areas where the Department has unique capabilities and responsibilities in keeping our people safe, ensuring fairness, and in protecting our environment.”
A little wishy-washy but sounds fair enough. However his recent moves and positions show that he is hardly comitted to keeping to the above rhetoric.
First heres an interview he gave to Katie Couric in 2009
Although a softball interview you can see his 2nd amendment stance emerge when pushed by Katie Couric as well as a border security strategy that does nothing to secure the border and ideas on moving Guantanamo detainees and civilian trials for them.
His stance on what to do with terrorists and on the 2nd Amendment are alarming indeed prompting a look into his past.
Eric H. Holder, Jr. was born on January 21, 1951 in the Bronx, New York. His father, Eric Himpton Holder, Sr. (1905 – 1970) hailed from Barbados and worked as a real estate broker. His mother, Miriam, was the American-born daughter of immigrants from Saint Philip, Barbados.
Eric Holder graduated from Columbia University in 1973 with a degree in American history. Three years later he graduated from Columbia Law School. During one of the summers between his law school academic years, he worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Holder was employed by the U.S. Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section from 1976 to 1988. In 1988 President Ronald Reagan appointed him as a Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Five years later Holder left this position when President Bill Clinton appointed him U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997 Clinton nominated Holder to replace Jamie Gorelick, the retiring Deputy Attorney General in Janet Reno’s Justice Department. Holder was confirmed in the Senate by a unanimous vote.
As Deputy Attorney General, Holder, as The Washington Post explained, “was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.” Indeed, Holder was a key figure entrusted with the task of vetting the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001. The beneficiaries of those pardons included such notables as former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg (who was involved in the deadly 1981 armed robbery of a Brink’s armored car) and Linda Evans (who had used false identification to buy firearms, harbored a fugitive, and was in possession of 740 pounds of dynamite at the time of her arrest in 1985).
So for the record, Holder was instrumental in the pardoning of two terrorist associates of Bill Ayer’s Marxist terrorist group, The Weather Underground. Continuing with the bio:
Holder and the Pardon of Marc Rich
Holder also played a role in the presidential pardon granted to the billionaire financier Marc Rich, a fugitive oil broker who had illegally purchased oil from Iran during the American trade embargo — and who then proceeded to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations. Rich later renounced his American citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and the illegal oil transactions with Iran.
Over the years, Rich’s ex-wife Denise had funneled at least $1.5 million to Clinton interests. Some $1.2 million went to the Democratic National Committee, $75,000 went to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and $450,000 helped finance the Bill Clinton Library in Arkansas. Mrs. Rich also had given expensive gifts to the Clintons and, according to some rumors, had a very close relationship with the President.
“Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter — a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was ‘neutral, leaning toward’ favorable — helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members.”
“Holder’s role in the Rich issue actually began … [a]t a corporate dinner in November 1998, [where] Mr. Holder was seated at a table with a public-relations executive named Gershon Kekst, who had been trying to help Mr. Rich resolve his legal troubles. When Mr. Kekst learned that his dinner companion was the deputy attorney general, he proceeded to bring up the case of an unnamed acquaintance who had been ‘improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor.’ … A person in that situation, Mr. Holder advised, should ‘hire a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, we work it out.’ Mr. Kekst wanted to know if Mr. Holder could suggest a lawyer. Mr. Holder pointed to a former White House counsel sitting nearby. ‘There’s Jack Quinn,’ he said. ‘He’s a perfect example.’ Months later, Mr. Rich’s advisers settled on Mr. Quinn to lead the legal efforts …
“In February 2000, Mr. Quinn sent Mr. Holder a memorandum entitled ‘Why D.O.J. [Department of Justice] Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment.’ About a month later, Mr. Holder spoke with Mr. Quinn again and told him that ‘we’re all sympathetic’ and that the legal ‘equities’ in the issue were ‘on your side.’ … By the fall of 2000, efforts to re-open the criminal case were dead, and Mr. Rich’s lawyers had moved on to the idea of a pardon. Again, Mr. Quinn turned to Mr. Holder. On Nov. 21, 2000, at the close of a meeting on a separate topic, Mr. Quinn took Mr. Holder aside, told him he was planning on filing a lengthy pardon petition with the White House and asked whether the White House should contact Mr. Holder for his opinion … In a separate e-mail message that Mr. Quinn [had] sent three days before that to other members of the Rich team,… he wrote: ‘Spoke to him last evening. Says to go straight to W.H. [White House]. Also says timing is good.’ …
“For the next months, Mr. Rich’s team pressed ahead with the pardon … On Jan. 19, 2001, Mr. Quinn called Mr. Holder and let him know that the White House would be contacting him for his recommendation on the pardon, which he said was receiving ‘serious consideration.’ Mr. Holder told him that he did not have a personal problem with the pardon, and Mr. Quinn quickly passed on the gist of the conversation to the White House. Minutes later, Mr. Holder received a call from Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, who had opposed the pardon idea and was surprised to hear that Mr. Holder apparently felt differently.
“Mr. Holder, according to Ms. Nolan’s testimony, told her that if the Israelis were in fact pushing for the pardon, he would find that ‘persuasive’ and would be ‘neutral leaning toward’ favorable.”
The next day, President Clinton signed the pardon. Clinton later cited Holder’s assessment as one of the factors that had persuaded him to issue the pardon. And once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.
A March 2002 congressional report concluded that Rich’s lawyers had tried to circumvent prosecutors (who they knew would oppose the pardon), and instead had chosen to take their case directly to the White House. Holder’s assistance in this process, coupled with his failure to alert prosecutors of a pending pardon, was crucial, said the report.
So a real criminal “Fat-Cat” gets to go free as long as his money finds it’s way into the hands of the Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party? Can we say Double Standard? Moving on:
Holder and the Pardon of FALN Terrorists
Holder was also intimately involved in President Clinton’s August 11, 1999 pardon of 16 members of the FALN, acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation—a violent terroristorganization (as designated by the FBI) that was active in the U.S. from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.
The FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group whose overriding mission was to secure Puerto Rico’s political independence from the United States. Toward that end, between 1974 and 1983 the group detonated nearly 130 bombs in such strategically selected places as military and government buildings, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters located mainly in Chicago, New York, and Washington DC. These bombings were carried out as acts of protest against America’s political, military, financial, and corporate presence in Puerto Rico. All told, FALN bombs killed six people—including the Chilean ambassador to the United States—and wounded at least 80 others.
On April 4, 1980, eleven FALN members were arrested in Evanston, Illinois. More of their comrades would also be apprehended in Chicago in the early 1980s. All were charged with seditious conspiracy, but they refused to participate in their own trial proceedings—claiming defiantly that the U.S. government was an illegitimate entity and thus had no moral authority by which to sit in judgment of them. All the defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to federal prison terms ranging from 35 to 105 years.
On November 9, 1993, a self-identified “human rights” organization named Ofensiva ’92 filed a petition for executive clemency on behalf of 18 members of the FALN and another violent organization seeking Puerto Rican independence, Los Macheteros (“The Machete-Wielders”). According to a December 12, 1999 report issued by the House Committee on Government Reform, the prisoners themselves “refused to take part in any process that would legitimize the government’s actions against them, therefore they refused to file their own petitions.”
This presented a problem because the Department of Justice (DOJ) traditionally stipulates that clemency will be considered only if a prisoner first files a petition on his or her own behalf, an act which the Department views as a sign of contrition. Nonetheless DOJ made an exception in this case and accepted Ofensiva ’92’s petition, a document which cast the FALN prisoners as blameless freedom fighters analogous to those Americans who had fought in the Revolutionary War against Britain.
Among the notables who joined Ofensiva ’92’s clemency crusade were Cardinal John O’Connor, Coretta Scott King, Jimmy Carter, and the National Lawyers Guild. Perhaps the most passionate support came from Democrat Representatives Luis Gutierrez (IL), Jose Serrano (NY), and Nydia Velazquez (NY), each of whom echoed Ofensiva ’92’s claim that the FALN members were “political prisoners” who deserved to be released.
The attorneys and advocates who were fighting for the freedom of the FALN prisoners first met with the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney on July 19, 1994. In October 1996 they met with Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President. They were unsuccessful, however, in their efforts to convey the legitimacy of their cause to the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), which in 1996 contacted the Justice Department and recommended against clemency; that recommendation, in turn, was forwarded to the White House.
But the matter was not over; OPA continued to meet with groups and individuals lobbying for clemency on behalf of the FALN terrorists. Then in 1997, Eric Holder — who was President Clinton’s new Deputy Attorney General (in the Justice Department headed by Janet Reno) — became involved in the case.
In this role, Holder was responsible for overseeing clemency investigations and determining which of those requests were ultimately worthy of President Clinton’s attention. As evidenced by a September 1997 memorandum from the Pardon Attorney, the Justice Department was, at this point, receiving numerous inquiries about the FALN and Macheteros—from the White House and from supporters of the prisoners. The aforementioned House Committee on Government Reform report stated: “Throughout the closing months of 1997 it appears that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was active in the issue. The privilege log reflects at least two notes regarding his questions on the clemency or his thoughts on the matter.”
On November 5, 1997, Holder met with Representatives Gutierrez, Serrano, and Velazquez to discuss the clemency issue. He advised the legislators that they might greatly increase the likelihood of a presidential pardon if they could convince the prisoners to write letters testifying as to the personal remorse they felt for their past actions. But no such letters would be produced for five months, during which time the clemency issue remained on hold. Meanwhile, in a January 6, 1998 letter a senior Justice Department official expressly referred to the FALN members as “terrorists.”
Then on April 8, 1998, Holder again met with FALN supporters. This time, they finally delivered statements from the prisoners as Holder had advised in November. But all the statements were identical—indicating that not one of the prisoners had made an effort to craft his own personal expression of repentance.Undeterred, Holder then raised the question of whether the prisoners might at least agree to renounce future violence in exchange for clemency. One of the prisoners’ backers, Reverend Paul Sherry, made it clear that they surely “would not change their beliefs”—presumably about the issue of Puerto Rican independence—but was vague as to whether they were apt to eschew violence altogether.
Over the next few weeks, Holder and the Justice Department continued to meet with numerous advocates of clemency and to review pertinent materials which the latter brought forth on behalf of the prisoners. Holder clearly was the point man for these clemency negotiations. As Brian Brian Blomquist wrote in the New York Post, “A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder, while [Janet] Reno’s role was minimal.” Similarly, New York Daily News reporter Edward Lewine wrote that Holder was “the Justice Department official most involved with this issue.”
Throughout the clemency review process, neither Holder nor anyone else in the Justice Department contacted any of the people who had been victimized (or whose loved ones had been victimized) by the FALN. Most were never aware that clemency for the terrorists was even being contemplated. And those few who were aware of the possibility were rebuffed in their efforts to participate in the review process.
On May 19, 1998, the Pardon Attorney sent Eric Holder a 48-page draft memorandum “concerning clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners.” Seven weeks later, on July 8, Holder sent President Clinton a “memorandum regarding clemency matter.” Indeed the Deputy Attorney General was methodically spearheading the march toward clemency — despite the fact that the sentencing judges, the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the FBI were unanimous in their opposition to pardoning the individuals in question.
In late July 1999 an attorney from Holder’s office spoke to White House Counsel Charles Ruff regarding the clemency matter. On August 9, 1999, Holder’s office and OPA held one final meeting to hammer out the details, and two days later the President made his announcement: clemency was granted to sixteen terrorists, most of whom had served only a fraction of their prison terms. Of the sixteen, twelve accepted the offer and were freed, two refused it, and two others, who already were out of prison, never responded.
Congress, for its part, was not pleased—condemning the clemencies by votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
In the aftermath of August 11, 1999, a report by the Justice Department stated that the FALN posed an “ongoing threat” to national security. And in late October 1999 the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report from Attorney General Janet Reno stating that the FALN members’ “impending release from prison” would “increase the present threat” of terrorism.
In an October 20th Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and again with reporters the following day, Eric Holder denied that Reno was referring to the same FALN terrorists whose pardons he had worked so long and hard to secure. Yet when Holder was asked to identify whom Reno was in fact talking about, he responded as follows:
“I don’t know, no, I don’t know that. We might be able to get you some more information on that, but, I mean, you know, there were certain people who are due to be released, or who were at least eligible for parole, had a release date in the next, as I said, three, four years. I don’t know exactly who they were. Maybe—we might be able to get you that information.”
The December 1999 House Committee on Government Reform report stated:
“The 16 [FALN] terrorists appear to be most unlikely candidates. They did not personally request clemency. They did not admit to wrongdoing and they had not renounced violence before such a renunciation had been made a quid pro quo for their release. They expressed no contrition for their crimes, and were at times openly belligerent about their actions…. Notwithstanding the fact that the 16 did not express enough personal interest in the clemency process to file their own applications, the White House appeared eager to assist throughout the process. Meetings were held with supporters, and some senior staff [i.e., Holder] even suggested ways to improve the likelihood of the President granting the clemency. Overall, the White House appears to have exercised more initiative than the terrorists themselves.”
So here we have Eric Holder going out of his way to convince Marxist Terrorists to take an offer of clemency for no apparent reason that anyone can determine. Are you seeing the pattern?
Here’s a look into the FALN case
And how it became a campaign issue in the Primaries for Hillary Clinton
Holder’s Views on Other Matters
“I don’t think there’s any question that there is the need for the Patriot Act, but I think there’s also the need to re-examine the Patriot Act and see how it has been enforced and whether or not we need to strengthen it, whether or not there are things we need to change…. When you look at some of the things that have done under the spirit of the act, where you detain citizens without giving them access to a lawyer, where you listen in on attorney-client conversations without involving a judge, these are the kinds of things that have been done in the name of the Patriot Act by this administration that I think are bad ultimately for law enforcement and will cost us the support of the American people … You have to deal with this whole question of secrecy and the way in which the administration has conducted itself. You need to involve judges. If you’re going to look at business records or library records, this should not be something that’s simply done by the executive branch without the involvement of judges.”
Holder has condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment,” even though detainees there are treated more humanely than even the Geneva Conventions require. Despite evidence to the contrary, he has accused the U.S. government of having “authorized torture and … let fear take precedence over the rule of law.” And he has demanded an immediateend to warrantless eavesdropping by intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
In a June 2008 speech to the American Constitution Society (ACS), Holder, who was himself an ACS Board of Directors member, condemned “the disastrous course” which the Bush administration had followed in its efforts to combat terrorism. “Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror,’” he said, “have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe.”
Holder added that the Bush administration had taken many steps that “were both excessive and unlawful” in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
“I never thought I would see the day when a Justice Department would claim that only the most extreme infliction of pain and physical abuse constitutes torture and that acts that are merely cruel, inhuman and degrading are consistent with United States law and policy, that the Supreme Court would have to order the president of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, never thought that I would see that a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens. This disrespect for the rule of law is not only wrong, it is destructive in our struggle against terrorism.”
On the subject of the post-9/11 anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act, Holder in April 2004 said the following:
Now isn’t it interesting that he can be against the Bush anti-terror policies and has had a big hand in releasing several terrorists, but seeks to determine if strengthing the Patriot Act is necessary? Just who is he looking for? In the end he divides his stance and says some of the Patriot Act is for the Executive Branch alone “without the involvement of judges.” Now that’s Tyranny.
Here’s Eric Holder getting grilled by Rep Gohmert on Hate Crimes legislation and the First Amendment, Water Boarding, and National Security
Holder has stated that he is personally opposed to the death penalty.
In 2008 Holder campaigned heavily for then-Illinois senator Barack Obama‘s presidential run. In the summer of 2008, candidate Obama tapped Holder to serve on the vice presidential selection team that ultimately chose Joe Biden to be Obama’s running mate. In November 2008, President-elect Obama, who was slated to take his oath of office two months later, selected Holder to serve as his Attorney General.
At the time Obama made this selection, the Washington, DC-based law firm Covington & Burling (C&B), where Holder was a partner, was representing 17 Yemeni detainees (and one Pakistani national) in Guantanamo Bay.A notable former client of Holder’s firm was yet another Guantanamo detainee, from Kuwait, who contributed to an anthology of detainee poetry compiled and published by Holder’s C&B colleague, Marc Falkoff. Falkoff likened the “gentle, thoughtful” poets’ plight to that of the Jews who had been held in concentration camps during World War II. The aforementioned Kuwaiti was released from Guantanamo in 2005 and promptly resumed his terrorist activities. In March 2008 he blew himself up with a truck bomb in Mosul, Iraq, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.
In a February 18, 2009 speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder alleged that Americans on the whole were afraid to confront racial issues in an honest or meaningful way. Among his remarks were the following:
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards…. [W]e, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable…. [T]his nation has still not come to grips with its racial past … [A] black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular.”
So he continously goes out of his way to get terrorists out of jail, either by Presidential pardon, or direct representation, yet calls the USA a “Nation of Cowards” about race. I think terrorists are cowards and the USA is a beautiful melting pot where, for many, the prejudices of old no longer exist.
In May 2009, Holder announced that Ahmed Ghailani — who was indicted by a federal grand jury for the 1998 bombings (which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans) of two U.S. embassies in Africa — would be transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to New York City for trial. This would make Ghailani the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S. and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court. Said Holder:
“By prosecuting Ahmed Ghailani in federal court, we will ensure that he finally answers for his alleged role in the bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya…. This administration is committed to keeping the American people safe and upholding the rule of law, and by closing Guantanamo and bringing terrorists housed there to justice we will make our nation stronger and safer.”
In August 2009, Holder appointed a federal prosecutor to investigate possible abuses by Bush-era CIA interrogators who used harsh tactics on terror detainees.
On November 13, 2009, Holder announced that his Justice Department would try five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, in a civilian court — the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants were Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Holder also stated that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a major suspect in the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, would be tried by a military commission, along with a few other detainees.
Here is Sen Lindsey Graham confronting Holder on this issue
On April 23, 2010, Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of any individuals whom they had stopped for some legitimate reason, if the behavior of those individuals — or the circumstances of the stop — led the officers to suspect that they might be in the United States illegally. In the ensuing days and weeks, Holder spoke out forcefully against the bill and indicated that the federal government might challenge it. During the weekend of May 8-9, he participated in a number of television interviews in which he warned that the law could lead to racial profiling and might cause Latinos to stop cooperating with police. But in a May 13 House hearing, Holder admitted that he had not read the statute: “I have not had a chance to. I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.”
On May 13, 2010, Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee. During his testimony, Rep. Lamar Smith tried to get the Attorney General to acknowledge that radical Islam might have played a role in motivating several recently attempted terrorist attacks against U.S. interests — most notably Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 2009 shooting of 13 fellow U.S. soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas; Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab’s attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Day 2009; and Faisal Shahzad’s attempted car bombing in New York’s Times Square on May 1, 2010. Holder refused to acknowledge Smith’s assertion. A video and transcript of Holder’s exchange with Smith can be viewed here.
And in this video: Eric Holder: Terrorists and Osama Bin Laden Have Same Rights As Charles Manson
Now it’s very interesting to note how this man that has freed terrorists wants to convince us that these terrorists (many of whom are captured on the battlefield) deserve the same rights and criminal trial of a murderer. Lets take a look at how he feels about us and our rights.
It must also be noted that, counting Holder, there are 10 attorneys now working in the Department of Justice that represented Guantanamo Bay detainees according to the Weekly Standard.
Eric Holder tried to reinstate a ban on assault weapons in Feb 2009 according to ABC:
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
The NRA quickly went after the administration for this move and you can hear it in this radio interview.
The Huffington Post reported that Holder backed off the ban due to pressure from the NRA. Whether that is the case or not, but this victory may be short lived as the Obama Administration isrecieving pressure to reinstate the ban from Mexico, according to Reuters:
Thursday May 20, 2010
In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Calderon described efforts to fight organized crime in Mexico, where 23,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he came to power in late 2006 and launched an army offensive.
Washington is also aiding Mexico’s battle against drug gangs with a 2007 pledge of $1.4 billion for equipment and police training to help fight the cartels that ship some $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.
The drug violence has become a major political test for Calderon and a growing worry for Washington and foreign investors as violence has spread across the southwest border.
“There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border,” Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.
Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.
The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though guns rights groups oppose it.
Calderon said he respects Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.
Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.
“I would ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban,” he said.
This sounds like the perfect excuse for the Obama Administration to use in circumventing the 2nd Amendment.
However, Eric Holder is also against the Right to Free Speech, at least on the internet.
So we can expect to see him assissting with any Net Neutrality move on the Administrations behalf.
Another big problem for Eric Holder is the accusation that the Justice Department under his command had orders not to pursue voter intimidation cases where the accusers are white and the accused is black. This all stems from the Dropping of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case due to lack of evidence.
Here’s some evidence
And Bill O’Reilly on the subject
This case has been reignited by DoJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams and been taken up by the Civil Rights Comission who, confronted with “DoJ Stonewalling” have asked for “Expanded Powers” in order to investigate. This case is far from over but is not the only instance of Holder’s DoJ interfering with the voting process.
There is also an accusation that the DoJ is ignoring the voting rights of our military voters. Here’s a look from Fox News:
EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Accused of Stalling on MOVE Act for Voters in Military
The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.
The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ’s alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers’ ballots will arrive too late to be counted.
“It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. “The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws.”
Adams, a conservative blogger (www.electionlawcenter.com) who gained national attention when he testified against his former employer after it dropped its case against the New Black Panther Party, called the DOJ’s handling of the MOVE Act akin to “keystone cops enforcement.”
“I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”
The MOVE act requires states to send absentee ballots to overseas military troops 45 days before an election, but a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific “undue hardship” in enforcing it.
Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law.
“Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted,” Cornyn said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.
“For far too long in this country, we have failed to adequately protect the right of our troops and their families to participate in our democratic process. The MOVE Act was supposed to end this sad history. The right to participate in democratic elections is fundamental to the American experience.”
In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ’s voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.
According to the meeting’s minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”
Cornyn wrote, “If these are the positions of the DOJ, then they fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question, and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”
He said the language of the law makes it clear that there is no ambiguity when it comes to states’ eligibility for being granted a waiver, and that the statute does not leave room for the Justice Department to decide whether to enforce its requirements.
“If a state is not in compliance with the statute, there is little room for “dialogue” or negotiation, and the Voting Section should take immediate steps to enforce the law and safeguard military and overseas voting rights, including pursuing litigation whenever necessary,” Cornyn wrote. “The comments by the DOJ official, as reported in the NASS minutes, appear to ignore Congress’ clear legislative language and could facilitate the disenfranchisement of our men and women in uniform.”
Cornyn, who discussed Eversole’s allegations at a meeting with Defense Department officials last week, called for Holder to immediately provide guidelines to state election officials; to ensure that states are required to abide by the law; and to provide Cornyn himself with a state-by-state breakdown of which states have already applied for waivers and which are expected to be in noncompliance with MOVE in the November midterm election. He also called for full transparency in the waiver process.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Xochitl Hinojosa, declined to comment, other than to say Cornyn’s letter is being reviewed.
FoxNews.com obtained waiver applications submitted by Washington and Hawaii.
Defense Department spokeswoman Major April Cunningham told FoxNews.com that New York, Delaware, Maryland, Alaska and Virgin Islands had also applied for waivers. (Cornyn’s co-sponsor for the MOVE Act was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat.)
“All waivers are currently under review. The Defense Department must respond, under the law, after consultation with the Department of Justice, no later than 65 days before the election, which is August 29, 2010,” said Robert Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program.
“The voting section has taken this haphazard approach to enforcing military voting law,” said Eversole. “The voting section is asserting itself into statute to make a statute that’s not ambiguous, ambiguous. Can you imagine any other agency giving prospective defendants advice like this?”
“Everybody in Washington knows it doesn’t matter how good the law is; it comes down to who’s enforcing it,” said Adams. “This stuff should be transparent and online for the citizens of these states to comment on, the fact that it’s being done behind closed doors tells you everything you need to know about how it will affect the voters.”
Adams and Eversole separately pointed out that the DOJ’s website lacks any mention of the MOVE Act. In fact, the section on military voting includes the outdated and nonbinding 30-day recommendation for sending out ballots. There is no mention of the the current 45-day mandate.
But the DOJ’s online voting section includes a detailed section devoted to helping felons learn how get their voting rights back.
“It is just offensive to most Americans that we can send soldiers to the front lines but they can’t vote,” said Eversole. “This is an issue that tugs at the heartstrings of America and people can’t understand why we can’t get that right. This is something we have to get right. We should be fighting as hard for their rights as they’re fighting for ours.”
So soldiers do not have a vote but let’s see what we can do for convicted felons. Department of Justice indeed. The Department of Justice responded to the allegations here, but as yet, no progress has been made that I am aware of.
So the Department of Justice under Eric Holder does not represent our traditional blind justice. Instead it’s selective justice and interpretation. Treat terrorists like shoplifters even if they are taken off the battlefield and set them free whenever possible, pardon a billionaire criminal as long as he donates big money to the Democratic Party, ignore voter intimidation when race is an issue, ignore the voting rights of soldiers when convenient but do everything you can to assist convicted felons get their voting rights back, and ignore the 2nd amendment if possible and the 1st if you can make it happen with legislation and internet control. Don’t forget that no state better try and enforce the Illegal Immigration laws that we are intentionally trying to ignore or you will face a lawsuit.
This is not Justice, this is using the law and office to further a left wing agenda. This is Eric Holder’s Department of Justice. This is Eric Holder.
Barack Hussein Obama’s psyche is reminiscent of Warden Samuel Norton in the Shawshank Redemption, arguably one of the finest movies ever made. You remember the scene, don’t you? Andy Dufresne has just arrived at Shawshank. He and the other new prisoners are marched, chain-gang style, into the prison and met by Warden Norton. Just before disappearing back into the shadows from whence he came, Norton utters those infamous words “Put your trust in the Lord. Your ass belongs to me!” That’s Obama in a nutshell. He is of the opinion that our asses belong to him. What’s more, he truly thinks he is the Lord. Not just a lord – the Lord. The staged Greek Columns at his nomination acceptance speech established that once and for all.
It has ever been thus. History is replete with tyrants arising from obscurity – imbued with an elitist vision of divine right to rule over us. This brings us to an examination of true leadership versus managership. The late Egyptologist, Hugh W. Nibley, speaking at the commencement ceremony at Brigham Young University on August 19, 1983 pegged both types – leaders and managers (In Obama’s case, an expressed proclivity for central management):
Leaders are movers and shakers, original, inventive, unpredictable, imaginative, full of surprises that discomfit the enemy in war and the main office in peace. For the managers are safe, conservative, predictable, conforming organization men and team players, dedicated to the establishment.
The leader, for example, has a passion for equality. We think of great generals from David and Alexander on down, sharing their beans or maza with their men, calling them by their first names, marching along with them in the heat, sleeping on the ground, and being first over the wall. A famous ode by a long-suffering Greek soldier, Archilochus, reminds us that the men in the ranks are not fooled for an instant by the executive type who thinks he is a leader. (Archilocus, frag. 58)
For the manager, on the other hand, the idea of equality is repugnant and even counterproductive. Where promotion, perks, privilege, and power are the name of the game, awe and reverence for rank is everything, the inspiration and motivation of all good men. Where would management be without the inflexible paper processing, dress standards, attention to proper social, political, and religious affiliation, vigilant watch over habits and attitudes that gratify the stockholders and satisfy security?
Now, having read Nibley’s amazing discourse on leadership and managership, into which camp do you think Obama falls? That’s right, he is no leader. He is, however, a great believer in his rank, his perks, his privilege, and his power. The irony is that Obama isn’t even much of a manager. This is odd, given the fact that he preaches the Gospel of Central Planning and Management.
Having established that Obama lacks true leadership skills, let us now turn our attention to the concept of liberty. For despite the fact the leadership gene is absent from Obama’s DNA, he does happen to rule over us in a despotic sort of way. Frankly, he has the power to restrict our liberties, and has demonstrated, time and again, a desire to do precisely that. America is at one of those hinge points of history – the ending of one era and the beginning of another. It is a time fraught with dangers to our personal liberties. It is also a time of blessing, for the dangers facing us have awakened the sleeping giant that is America’s soul and countless millions are fighting back against Obama and his minions – who intend to enslave us.
A key question is from where do our liberties originate? Obama would have us believe that the state is the grantor of all personal rights – the state alone has the right to determine what, if any, rights are granted to its citizenry. However, there is another, more revolutionary idea on this subject. The Declaration of Independence posited these truths to be “Self-evident,” that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and that the purpose of government is merely “to secure these Rights.” The Constitution of the United States was established to provide a practical way to guarantee these God-given rights. God – that’s a concept at odds with Statism, for Statists see God as a threat to their power.
The past week or so, we have been witnessing an amazing public relations attempt to align Obama with God in general, and Christianity specifically. The question: Is Obama a Muslim? Perhaps a more fundamental question should be “Does Obama believe in God?” Well, does he? Evidence doesn’t support that contention. Obama doesn’t go to church. Therefore, Bill Burton is trying to convince us that Obama attends services via his BlackBerry. How does that work, specifically? Does Barry navigate to BlackBerry App World and purchase salvation for $3.99? Burton also is floating a trial balloon that Obama prays daily. Prays? No – Preys? Yes. America is seeing through the spin. Obama is a self-made man and worships his creator. Which is convenient, since that would be himself. Do we really believe that Obama sought out the Rev. Wright’s leftist church 20 years ago because he was a true believer in Christ? Not likely. That move appears to have been politically motivated. Do we really believe now that Obama is a Christian? No. – Especially since he spends the typical Sabbath not in church but out on the golf course. It appears we have an oxymoron Messiah. He doesn’t believe in himself. The true Christ taught correct principles and then allowed men to govern themselves. Obama can’t abide that kind of doctrine – it goes against his grain. That alone tells us he is no Christian. He fights against personal liberties. Remember, he calls the Bill of Rights “Negative Rights,” for it does not specifically spell out what the government must do for us. Obama’s concept of liberty is not individual – it is collective. He is a statist. He believes liberties devolve from the state – not from God. Hating the concept of God, he probably wouldn’t make a better Muslim than he does a Christian. Is he Christian? No. Is he Muslim? It is debatable. Then what is he? Well, he obviously worships himself so we could call his self-professed religion Barium. Get it? Good!
The long-established position of the left has been to attack religious freedom. But now we see the leftists frantically trying to convince us that Obama is a Christian. Now what could possibly induce that kind of role reversal among the left? The answer is simple. The progressives (a more accurate name would be the regressives) are frightened. They smell political disaster if Americans perceive Obama to be Muslim. They can’t point to a life of piety on Obama’s part so they are forced, yet again, to spin the truth. Whatever happened to their incessant whining about the separation of church and state? The important message to take away from all of this is that the left believes in nothing. Every position they take is meaningless. And their positions change 180 degrees if the political winds shift. They are amoral. They have no morals.
It is not just our religious freedom that is at stake today. Freedom of Speech is also under attack. That became quite clear, even transparent, to us all as we heard Nancy Pelosi call for investigations into the backgrounds of those who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero. (I’m not falling for the spin that the mosque is merely near Ground Zero.) Imagine, high-ranking government officials threatening police investigations of all those who have views differing from their own. Pelosi is engaging in the rawest form of intimidation.
Despite the constant attacks on our personal liberties that the Obama administration has engaged in for the past 19 months, we still retain most of our freedoms. But that situation can change if conservatives allow the midterm elections to slip through their fingers. The midterms represent the one, and only, chance to put a roadblock in the path to socialism. There is still hope.
We return to the Shawshank Redemption. Paroled from prison, Red travels to a field outside of Buxton, Maine. He digs up the little tin box under the mighty oak tree and reads Andy’s letter. “Remember, Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”
Don’t let hope die, America. Fight for your liberties. Fight for your children’s liberties. Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight. Giving in to tyranny is unacceptable because once liberty is lost; it can only be regained through the shedding of blood. Fight. Liberty is worth it!
The latest polls say that 1 in 4 believe Obama to be a Muslim. Obama is not a Muslim, but his chosen faith isn’t really Christianity, but a perversion called Black Liberation Theology (BLT). In BLT there is only the oppressors and the oppressed. This is very important to understand as we go through his statements. First lets look at a statement from his book The Audacity of Hope Via Snopes and truthorfiction.com: (emphasis mine)
Page 261 The Audacity of Hope
“Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
He is not saying I am Muslim, but those he associates with, such as Rashid Khalidi, have convinced him that Muslims, or more specifically in this case American Muslims are another oppressed minority. Keeping with his distorted Christianity he advocates that he must “stand with them” if the US begins internment camps like during World War II or if “the political winds shift in an ugly direction” in general.
In 2004 Obama sat down for an interview with Cathleen Falsani, a columnist for the Chicago Sun Times. The subject was his religion. The Website Beliefnet.com reposted the interview in it’s entirety in 2008. I have reposted it below in it’s entirety: (Emphasis other than names is mine)
What do you believe?
OBAMA: I am a Christian.
So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith.
On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences.
I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10.
My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim.
And I’d say, probably, intellectually I’ve drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.
(A patron stops and says, “Congratulations,” shakes his hand. “Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.”)
So, I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.
And so, part of my project in life was probably to spend the first 40 years of my life figuring out what I did believe – I’m 42 now – and it’s not that I had it all completely worked out, but I’m spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values. FALSANI:
Have you always been a Christian?
OBAMA: I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.
Any particular flavor?
My grandparents who were from small towns in Kansas. My grandmother was Methodist. My grandfather was Baptist. This was at a time when I think the Methodists felt slightly superior to the Baptists. And by the time I was born, they were, I think, my grandparents had joined a Universalist church.
So, my mother, who I think had as much influence on my values as anybody, was not someone who wore her religion on her sleeve. We’d go to church for Easter. She wasn’t a church lady.
As I said, we moved to Indonesia. She remarried an Indonesian who wasn’t particularly, he wasn’t a practicing Muslim. I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country. So I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and at night you’d hear the prayer call.
So I don’t think as a child we were, or I had a structured religious education. But my mother was deeply spiritual person, and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world’s religions, and talk to me about them. And I think always, her view always was that underlying these religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good.
And, so that, I think, was what I carried with me through college. I probably didn’t get started getting active in church activities until I moved to Chicago.
The way I came to Chicago in 1985 was that I was interested in community organizing and I was inspired by the Civil Rights movement. And the idea that ordinary people could do extraordinary things. And there was a group of churches out on the South Side of Chicago that had come together to form an organization to try to deal with the devastation of steel plants that had closed. And didn’t have much money, but felt that if they formed an organization and hired somebody to organize them to work on issues that affected their community, that it would strengthen the church and also strengthen the community.
So they hired me, for $13,000 a year. The princely sum. And I drove out here and I didn’t know anybody and started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job training programs, or afterschool programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to underserved communites.
This would be in Roseland, West Pullman, Altgeld Gardens, far South Side working class and lower income communities.
And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened because I’d be spending an enormous amount of time with church ladies, sort of surrogate mothers and fathers and everybody I was working with was 50 or 55 or 60, and here I was a 23-year-old kid running around.
I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and it’s importance in the community.
And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply.
So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church. FALSANI: Did you actually go up for an altar call?
It was a daytime service, during a daytime service. And it was a powerful moment. Because, it was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it not only gave shape to my faith, but I think, also, allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.
How long ago?
16, 17 years ago. 1987 or 88
FALSANI: So you got yourself born again?
OBAMA: Yeah, although I don’t, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.
I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.
I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.
FALSANI Do you still attend Trinity?
OBAMA: Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.
Ever been there? Good service.
I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father, it’s kind of a meditation on race. There’s a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.
FALSANI: Do you pray often?
OBAMA: Uh, yeah, I guess I do.
Its’ not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it.
One of the interesting things about being in public life is there are constantly these pressures being placed on you from different sides. To be effective, you have to be able to listen to a variety of points of view, synthesize viewpoints. You also have to know when to be just a strong advocate, and push back against certain people or views that you think aren’t right or don’t serve your constituents.
And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I’m having internally. I’m measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I’m on track and where I think I’m off track.
It’s interesting particularly now after this election, comes with it a lot of celebrity. And I always think of politics as having two sides. There’s a vanity aspect to politics, and then there’s a substantive part of politics. Now you need some sizzle with the steak to be effective, but I think it’s easy to get swept up in the vanity side of it, the desire to be liked and recognized and important. It’s important for me throughout the day to measure and to take stock and to say, now, am I doing this because I think it’s advantageous to me politically, or because I think it’s the right thing to do? Am I doing this to get my name in the papers or am I doing this because it’s necessary to accomplish my motives.
Checking for altruism?
Yeah. I mean, something like it.
Looking for, … It’s interesting, the most powerful political moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth. I can feel it. When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.
What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?
OBAMA: Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.
That’s something you learn watching ministers, quite a bit. What they call the Holy Spirit. They want the Holy Spirit to come down before they’re preaching, right? Not to try to intellectualize it but what I see is there are moments that happen within a sermon where the minister gets out of his ego and is speaking from a deeper source. And it’s powerful.
There are also times when you can see the ego getting in the way. Where the minister is performing and clearly straining for applause or an Amen. And those are distinct moments. I think those former moments are sacred.
FALSANI: Who’s Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)
Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.
And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.
FALSANI: Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life?
OBAMA: Yeah. Yes. I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Have you read the bible?
I read it not as regularly as I would like. These days I don’t have much time for reading or reflection, period.
Do you try to take some time for whatever, meditation prayer reading?
I’ll be honest with you, I used to all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But during the course of this campaign, I don’t. And I probably need to and would like to, but that’s where that internal monologue, or dialogue I think supplants my opportunity to read and reflect in a structured way these days.
It’s much more sort of as I’m going through the day trying to take stock and take a moment here and a moment there to take stock, why am I here, how does this connect with a larger sense of purpose.
FALSANI: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?
OBAMA: Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.
I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.
Meet Rev Wright courtesy of ABC News
Meet Father Michael Pfleger
Meet Reverend Meeks courtesy of CBS
Those two will keep you on your toes.
And theyr’e good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what’s happening to each of us in ways that are useful.
I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.
Jack Ryan [Obama’s Republican opponent in the U.S. Senate race at the time] said talking about your faith is frought with peril for a public figure.
Which is why you generally will not see me spending a lot of time talking about it on the stump.
Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country.
As I said before, in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.
Now, that’s different form a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values that inform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.
A standard line in my stump speech during this campaign is that my politics are informed by a belief that we’re all connected. That if there’s a child on the South Side of Chicago that can’t read, that makes a difference in my life even if it’s not my own child. If there’s a senior citizen in downstate Illinois that’s struggling to pay for their medicine and having to chose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer even if it’s not my grandparent. And if there’s an Arab American family that’s being rounded up by John Ashcroft without the benefit of due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
Obama discusses Collective Salvation
I can give religious expression to that. I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes Democrats have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don’t think those two things are mutually exclusive.
Do you think it’s wrong for people to want to know about a civic leader’s spirituality?
I don’t’ think it’s wrong. I think that political leaders are subject to all sorts of vetting by the public, and this can be a component of that.
I think that I am disturbed by, let me put it this way: I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God’s mandate.
I think there is this tendency that I don’t think is healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them.
The conversation stopper, when you say you’re a Christian and leave it at that.
Where do you move forward with that?
This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.
FALSANI: You don’t believe that?
I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.
I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That’s just not part of my religious makeup.
Part of the reason I think it’s always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest commong denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.
FALSANI: Do you ever have people who know you’re a Christian question a particular stance you take on an issue, how can you be a Christian and …
OBAMA: Like the right to choose.
I haven’t been challenged in those direct ways. And to that extent, I give the public a lot of credit. I’m always stuck by how much common sense the American people have. They get confused sometimes, watch FoxNews or listen to talk radio.That’s dangerous sometimes. But generally, Americans are tolerant and I think recognize that faith is a personal thing, and they may feel very strongly about an issue like abortion or gay marriage, but if they discuss it with me as an elected official they will discuss it with me in those terms and not, say, as ‘you call yourself a Christian.’ I cannot recall that ever happening.
FALSANI: Do you get questions about your faith?
OBAMA: Obviously as an African American politician rooted in the African American community, I spend a lot of time in the black church. I have no qualms in those settings in participating fully in those services and celebrating my God in that wonderful community that is the black church.
But I also try to be . . . Rarely in those settings do people come up to me and say, what are your beliefs. They are going to presume, and rightly so. Although they may presume a set of doctrines that I subscribe to that I don’t necessarily subscribe to.
But I don’t think that’s unique to me. I think that each of us when we walk into our church or mosque or synagogue are interpreting that experience in different ways, are reading scriptures in different ways and are arriving at our own understanding at different ways and in different phases.
I don’t know a healthy congregation or an effective minister who doesn’t recognize that.
If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.
Do you believe in heaven?
Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?
A place spiritually you go to after you die?
OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.
When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.
Do you believe in sin?
FALSANI: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
What happens if you have sin in your life?
I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.
FALSANI: Where do you find spiritual inspiration? Music, nature, literature, people, a conduit you plug into?
There are so many.
Nothing is more powerful than the black church experience. A good choir and a good sermon in the black church, it’s pretty hard not to be move and be transported.
I can be transported by watching a good performance of Hamlet, or reading Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon, or listening to Miles Davis.
FALSANI: Is there something that you go back to as a touchstone, a book, a particular piece of music, a place …
As I said before, in my own sort of mental library, the Civil Rights movement has a powerful hold on me. It’s a point in time where I think heaven and earth meet. Because it’s a moment in which a collective faith transforms everything. So when I read Gandhi or I read King or I read certain passages of Abraham Lincoln and I think about those times where people’s values are tested, I think those inspire me.
What are you doing when you feel the most centered, the most aligned spiritually?
I think I already described it. It’s when I’m being true to myself. And that can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids, or it can happen in a small interaction with a security guard in a building when I’m recognizing them and exchanging a good word.
Is there someone you would look to as an example of how not to do it?
… An example of a role model, who combined everything you said you want to do in your life, and your faith?
I think Gandhi is a great example of a profoundly spiritual man who acted and risked everything on behalf of those values but never slipped into intolerance or dogma. He seemed to always maintain an air of doubt about him.
I think Dr. King, and Lincoln. Those three are good examples for me of people who applied their faith to a larger canvas without allowing that faith to metasticize into something that is hurtful.
Can we go back to that morning service in 1987 or 88 — when you have a moment that you can go back to that as an epiphany…
It wasn’t an epiphany.
It was much more of a gradual process for me. I know there are some people who fall out. Which is wonderful. God bless them. For me it was probably because there is a certain self-consciousness that I possess as somebody with probably too much book learning, and also a very polyglot background.
It wasn’t like a moment where you finally got it? It was a symbol of that decision?
Exactly. I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me.
Theres quite alot in his statements here that should clue the reader into the fact that his chosen Christianity isn’t very Christian at all, but a perversion known as Black Liberation Theology. This movement is more Marxist than Christian and seperates all people into 2 camps, the oppressor and the oppressed. For a look into it we turn first to Discover the Networks: (Emphasis mine)
Black liberation theology is closely related to the broader phenomenon of liberation theology, which calls for social activism, class struggle, and even violent revolution aimed at overturning the “capitalist oppressors of the poor” and installing, in its place, a socialist utopia that will finally enfranchise the poor and downtrodden. As an extension of this movement, black liberation theology similarly seeks to foment Marxist revolutionary fervor but one founded on racial rather than class solidarity.
A clear definition of black liberation theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men:
“Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of ‘blackness.’ It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says ‘No’ to the encroachment of white oppression.”
The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.
“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”
Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”
Black liberation theology entered the public consciousness in 2008 when the media focused on the racist sermons of Barack Obama’s minister Jeremiah Wright, a strong adherent of the movement.
Meet James Cone, the father of Black Liberation Theology and his explanations on his theology
Now there are many that would use certain quotes to convince you he’s a Muslim
“Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country, I know because I am one of them.”
Meaning I am an American with Muslims in my family and have lived in a Muslim majority country (Indonesia), not I am a Muslim.
In pre-prepared speeches before the Muslim world he quoted the Quran in an effort of outreach to the Muslim world as part of his apology tour. Remember he believes they are oppressed people and moves to save them in accordance with collective salvation. He can see eye to eye with Muslims because he has been taught through his chosen theology that it’s White People, Jews, and Capitalism that are evil. The Marxism comes from his mother, father, step-father, grandparents, and mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
Though his father and step father were Muslim he really didn’t have alot of exposure to them, nor the rest of his family in Kenya. He does have Muslim friends such as Rashid Khalidi. One key Muslim friend from the past that must be noted here is Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour who reportedly got Obama into Harvard Law through connections. If you isten to the teachings from Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour you will draw the conclusion that he isn’t preaching Islam, but Black Liberation Theology through Islam. You can hear James Cone’s work in the sermons of both Rev. Wright and the lectures of Dr. Mansour.
In closing Obama is not Muslim, but not Christian. He is a Marxist that has been given a theology to back up Marxism and racism. This theology preaches that Redistribution of Wealth is mandatory for all or you will never go to Heaven. This theory of Collective Salvation is just a way to hide Marxism within a religion and, having been raised on Communism, Obama bought it.
On Wednesday Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck had a conversation where Bill promised to have Glenn anchor The Factor’s 8pm time slot. The wager is based on O’Reilly’s projection that only 15 or 20 thousand people will show up for Beck’s 8-28 Restoring Honor event. Glenn is hoping for well over 100,000
So will Beck see a mass of humanity or will even those in the back of the crowd have a great view? It’s impossible to estimate, but some available information can serve as a lower-end guideline to the number of people that might show up. At GlennBeck.com, they have a map with markers to show every bus that has registered with them. This does not represent every bus that’s going, just every bus that has told the organizers that they will be there. Here’s a screenshot from 8-21-10 around noon EST.
I went to the map and zoomed in to see if I could count the number of registered buses when I quickly realized the error in my approach: the map has a single pin per group. I know for a fact that one of the pins represents six buses not one, but there is no way to know that from the map. Many of these pins probably represent 6 or more buses. We’ll break it down by area:
You may wonder why I assumed 6 buses per pin. As these posts illustrate, many represent 10 or more buses – six seemed a reasonable median.
Using the 56 seats per bus, one could conclude that they have 6 buses going, although the site only says 5. I contacted the organizer, Laura Long, to confirm the sixth bus and will update this post with her response should she comment. This post does seem to indicate a sixth bus.
*Update*: Laura Long of Triangle Conservatives Unite did respond to a few questions I had left for her. The delay is perfectly understandable as coordinating six buses full of excited patriots has got to be time-consuming. Although, not a smooth transition in the article, anyone that has done so much for Conservatism deserves a little spotlight. Here’s the interchange:
Rich: How many buses have you arranged for the 8-28 Restoring Honor rally?
Laura: I have arranged for 6 buses (56 people per bus).
Rich: If you had to guess, how many people do you think will be attending the event?
Laura: I heard from the RFK stadium today that there are over 1,000 buses registered, so bus attendees alone will make up 50,000 people, I could easily see 100,000 people showing up
Rich: Why are you personally going to the event?
Laura: I am attending this event to honor those who fought for and continue to fight for our country and our way of life – our wonderful military. I think our freedom is at stake as the government seizes more control of our lives, usurps more of our private property and taxes more of our hard-earned dollars. I am attending this rally to stand shoulder to shoulder with Americans who want to see an end to corruption in our government and a stricter adherence to our Constitution.
There are also the possible attendees that are impossible to count:
The tens of thousands that live in the D.C. area that will attend a local, free, historic event because of the relatively light effort.
Those flying because a bus ride will take too much time to cross the country both ways
Those driving themselves
Buses and vans not registered with the site
Those attending for other major events or on vacation who may decide to drop in – 3.6 Million people visit the Lincoln Memorial each year – the low end estimate would put an additional 10,000 people from just daily visitation.
Of course the city will already have a large incursion of individuals as Al Sharpton is organizing a rally to commemorate Martin Luther King’s original “I Have a Dream” speech. A worthy cause that will hopefully interact in a positive and peaceful manner with the Restoring Honor event – they are both seeking the same end. I would hope those going for the perspective events, might seek to attend the other if possible. In this article, Sharpton said as much.
Sharpton, who has planned a march that day to commemorate King’s legacy, says Beck’s rally contradicts King’s legacy. “For Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to have a march, they have the right to do so. Many of us suspect they are using the symbolism of that day in a way that does not reflect what the day is about,” Sharpton said. “At no point will we interchange. We will not desecrate the march and what King stood for.”
The attendance may also be boosted by less-than-honorable causes as counter-ralliers like this group from Butch Femme Planet
Let’s CRASH Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally!!! This is an outrage- pure and simple. Honestly, we do need to make noise about this!!! Some coverage has been on MSNBC lately…. but not enough!! This is slated to happen during the annual MLK commemorative festivities in DC.
Beck has stated that Republicans are responsible for the civil rights movement in the US and that they are going to take it back!! Yes, he is crazy… but crazy like a fox (pun intended), has mojo going with the ultra-conservative right, has a TV and radio show, and people listen to him! Hitler was crazy, too…. let us not forgot the kinds of people that desire power and adoration and what they can do especially in times of economic decline.
Forget about old Rush…. Beck is really a dangerous human being!
On August 28, 1963, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a modern-day Founding Father, delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.
On the 47th anniversary of King’s historic proclamation, far-right fearmonger Glenn Beck will hold a self-serving press event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. He’s trying to co-opt King’s Dream, with a Nightmare message to his throng of followers.
Don’t let this buffoon diminish a day that belongs to all Americans. Join us to Celebrate the Dream and Reject the Nightmare.
“It was not my intention to select 8-28 because of the Martin Luther King tie. It is the day he made that speech. I had no idea until I announced it and I walked offstage and my researchers said, New York Times has already just published that this is (the same day as the King speech) — and I said, ‘Oh, jeez.’ ”
He went on to say: “I believe in divine providence. I believe this is a reason (the date was chosen), because whites don’t own the Founding Fathers. Whites don’t own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King. Humans, humans embrace their ideas or reject their ideas. Too many are rejecting the Founders’ ideas. Too many have forgotten Abraham Lincoln’s ideas and far too many have either gotten just lazy or they have purposely distorted Martin Luther King’s ideas of judge a man by the content of his character. Lately, in the last 20 years, we’ve been told that character doesn’t matter. Well, if character doesn’t matter, then what was Martin Luther King asking people to judge people by?”
If registered buses alone will be responsible for 50+ thousand attendees, I image double that number will fly, drive, or use the local mass transit systems to attend. Tack on all the counter-rally publicity and this will be an event of historic measure. I am personally attending the rally. I am attending as a journalist and an American. I will be taking in the events for myself and to share with every one of you. If you aren’t part of it, will you be left saying, “I wish I had”?
*Update: Wanna know what I saw of counter-protests at the rally? First hand account with pictures HERE*
If you are going to the rally, please consider this video on what to bring and what not to bring.
Yesterday on August 19th Obama took advantage of the Senate’s recess to push through four people for political positions by Recess Appointment. One of the four raised a few eyebrows, and for good reason. She is Maria del Carmen Aponte and she is now our Ambassador to El Salvador. First the Official Story.
On December 9th 2009 Obama nominated her for the position, but has been unable to get her through the Senate and you will see why. She was appointed with the following announcement and bio: (Emphasis mine)
President Obama Announces Recess Appointments to Key Administration Posts. Four Appointees Have Waited an Average of 303 Days for Senate Confirmation.
WASHINGTON – President Obama announced today his intent to recess appoint four nominees to fill key administration posts that have been left vacant for an extended period of time.
“At a time when our nation faces so many pressing challenges, I urge members of the Senate to stop playing politics with our highly qualified nominees, and fulfill their responsibilities of advice and consent,” President Obama said. “Until they do, I reserve the right to act within my authority to do what is best for the American people.”
The President announced his intent to recess appoint the following nominees:
Maria del Carmen Aponte, Nominee for Chief of Mission, Republic of El Salvador
Maria del Carmen Aponte is currently an attorney and independent consultant with Aponte Consulting and serves on the Board of Directors of Oriental Financial Group. From 2001-2004, Ms. Aponte was the Executive Director of the Puerto Rican Federal Affairs Administration (PRFAA). Prior to that, she practiced law for nearly twenty years with Washington D.C. based law firms. Ms. Aponte also served as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Council of La Raza, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the University of the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Board of Rosemont College. She served as president of the Hispanic National Bar Association; the Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia; and as a member of the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission. In 1979, as a White House Fellow, Ms. Aponte was Special Assistant to United States Housing and Urban Development Secretary Moon Landrieu. Ms. Aponte has a B.A. in Political Science from Rosemont College, an M.A. in Theatre from Villanova University, and a J.D. from Temple University.
So a former Board Member of Radical La Raza (The Race) is now our Ambassador to El Salvador. Let’s take an indepth look into La Raza before we get back to Mrs Aponte. From Discover the Networks:
Founded in 1968 as the Southwest Council of La Raza, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. It works “to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans,” who are, in its estimation, an oppressed minority that suffers much injustice and discrimination in American society. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations, NCLR is active in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, “providing a Latino perspective” in the following areas:
Advocacy and Electoral Empowerment: In an effort “to reduce poverty and discrimination and improve life opportunities for Hispanics,” NCLR works for “increased Latino participation in the political process.”
Civil Rights and Justice: “Discrimination severely limits the economic and social opportunities available to Hispanic Americans. NCLR [seeks] to promote and protect equality of opportunity in voting, justice issues, education, employment, housing, and health care for all Americans.”
Community and Family Wealth-Building: Lamenting the Hispanic community’s “lack of access to capital,” this program aims “to measurably increase the level of … assets” held by that demographic. Toward that end, NCLR has initiated America’s largest Hispanic Community Development Finance Institution (CDFI) to provide low-cost capital.
Education: This program “focuses its investment in the areas of early childhood education and high-school reform, where the disparity between Latinos and other groups is greatest. NCLR [engages in] advocacy for policy outcomes that will make the nation’s public school system more responsive to the needs of Latino children.” NCLR also supports the DREAM Act, which is designed to allow illegal aliens to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents.
Employment and Economic Opportunities: This initiative “seeks to advance the economic well-being of Latinos by focusing its program and policy work on closing the employment and skills gaps between Latinos and other Americans … [and] in increasing access to federally-funded job training services and opportunities for Latino workers.”
Farmworkers: “NCLR conducts policy analyses and advocacy activities in this area in order to improve conditions and opportunities for the nation’s farmworkers. NCLR also works very closely with the Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. a national advocacy group for migrant and seasonal workers [illegal aliens].”
Health and Family Support: NCLR collaborates with a variety of organizations — state, local, and national — to promote “reform” that would give illegal immigrants full access to taxpayer-funded health care services.
Immigration: NCLR strives “to encourage immigration policies that are fair and nondiscriminatory, to encourage family reunification, and to enact necessary reforms to the current immigration system.” In short, it favors amnesty for illegals already residing in the U.S., and open borders henceforth. In La Raza’s calculus, any restriction on the free movement of immigrants constitutes a violation of their civil rights, and any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers is “a disgrace to American values.” Thus La Raza supports continued mass Mexican immigration to the United States, and hopes to achieve, by the sheer weight of numbers, the re-partition of the American Southwest as a new state called Aztlan — to be controlled by its alleged rightful owners, the people and government of Mexico. La Raza is also a sponsoring organization of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, which seeks to secure ever-expanding rights and civil liberties protections for illegal immigrants, and policy reforms that diminish or eliminate future restrictions on immigration. At many of the “pro-immigration” rallies that NCLR members have attended in recent times, their signature slogan has been: “La Raza unida nunca sera vencida!” (“The united [Hispanic] race will never be defeated!”)
With regard to national security concerns, NCLR has strongly opposed most of the U.S. government’s post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts, alleging that they have “undermined” the rights of “noncitizen Latinos.” For example: La Raza was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it “contain[ed] a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights”; it has endorsed the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, a project that tries to influence city councils to pass resolutions to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act; it endorsed the December 18, 2001 “Statement of Solidarity with Migrants,” which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and called upon the U.S. government to “end discriminatory policies passed on the basis of legal status in the wake of September 11”; and it endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
NCLR’s major policy positions also include the following:
It opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver’s license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine. According to La Raza, this law “opens the door to widespread discrimination and civil rights violations.”
It opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act (CLEAR), which would empower state and local law-enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. La Raza argues this would “result in higher levels of racial profiling, police misconduct, and other civil rights violations.”
It lobbies for racial and ethnic preferences (affirmative action) and set-asides in hiring, promotions, and college admissions.
It supports bilingual education and bilingual ballots.
It supports voting rights for illegal aliens.
It supports stricter hate-crime laws.
It opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens.
It opposed President Bush’s signing of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006” which authorized 700 miles of new border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
As columnist Michelle Malkin reports, La Raza seeks to inculcate young people with its worldview by funding a number of charter schools that advocate ethnic separatism and anti-American, anti-white attitudes.
The organization’s current President is Janet Murquia, who worked at the White House in various capacities from 1994 to 2000, ultimately as deputy assistant to President Bill Clinton. Immediately prior to joining NCLR, she was the Executive Vice Chancellor for University Relations at the University of Kansas.
At the March 2008 “Take Back America” conference sponsored by Campaign for America’s Future (CAF), NCLR joined CAF and five additional leftist organizations in announcing plans for “the most expensive [$350 million] mobilization in history this election season.” The initiative focused on voter registration, education, and get-out-the-vote drives. Other members of the coalition included MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote, ACORN, the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, and the AFL-CIO.
If theres any confusion what La Raza represents heres a couple videos. First up in 2006 their President tried to defend their illegal policies regarding illegal aliens.
And next, the Radical side. Ron Gochez calling for a Communist Revolution against “Frail, racist white people” I don’t have a date for this but have heard around 2005
If you think she severed all ties to them, think again. NCLR issued a press release in honor of her appointment:
Washington, DC—NCLR (National Council of La Raza), the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, applauds President Obama’s decision to move forward with a Recess Appointment of Maria del Carmen Aponte, as the next U.S. Chief of Mission to the Republic of El Salvador.
The Hispanic community celebrated Ms. Aponte’s nomination last December as a positive step forward in the relationship between the United States and El Salvador; she was further welcomed by informed observers on U.S.-Latin American relations along the entire political spectrum as an inspired choice. Her distinguished career in the private sector, through her law practice, and in public service at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and in heading the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, make her uniquely qualified for this distinguished honor.
In addition, Ms. Aponte has a strong history of personal and professional leadership in the U.S. Latino community, specifically through her service on the board of directors of numerous national Hispanic-serving organizations, including her election as the first female Chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association.
“Ms. Aponte’s familiarity with the Salvadoran-American community makes her a natural choice for U.S. Chief of Mission to El Salvador,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “The Senate’s delay in concluding her confirmation process has been unacceptable to the United State’s national interests and it is hard for us to believe, absent any evidence to the contrary, that any legitimate concerns can explain the repeated delays to which this nomination has been subjected.”
Following the approval of her nomination by the Foreign Relations Committee in April, Ms. Aponte’s confirmation vote was delayed by an anonymous “hold.” During her confirmation hearing in March, which was itself the subject of several delays, Ms. Aponte was questioned in detail by members of the Senate about a 20-years-gone romantic relationship with a Cuban national, then employed by the Cuban Interests Section. The FBI first investigated this issue in 1999, after which Ms. Aponte was granted a diplomatic security clearance and nominated for an ambassadorial position. She was again successfully vetted in 2009 by the FBI and the State Department, leading to her current nomination.
“The president’s decision to move forward with Ms. Aponte’s appointment should serve as a strong reminder to some members of the Senate that political games are never acceptable where our nation’s future is concerned,” concluded Murguía.
Now for more detail into why she was not confirmed in the Senate we turn to the Washington Post:
The most contentious of the appointments is Maria del Carmen Aponte, the administration’s pick for ambassador to El Salvador.
Senate Republicans questioned her during a March confirmation hearing about a former romantic relationship with a Cuban national connected to Cuban intelligence.
She denied any contact with Cuban intelligence officials but said she met some Cuban officials socially over the course of the relationship.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and other Republicans later placed a hold on Aponte’s nomination as they sought additional information about her background.
“The White House continued to deny senators information, despite numerous requests, and then recess appoints her to circumvent the advice and consent process. So much for transparency and accountability,” said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.
Ok lets add it all up. We have a former board member of a radical Communist organization that admits ties to Cuban officials but not to Cuban intelligence officials going to represent the United States in the Powder Keg of Central America where half the countries basically swear allegiance to Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez pays homage to Fidel Castro, his mentor,every chance he gets. Any tie to Castro is a direct line to Hugo Chavez. He has been buying up more tanks jet fighters and weapons then he can afford from Russia and China and in addition to his Socialist Empire has significant ties to Iran and various South American and Islamic terrorist organizations. Hugo Chavez has brought a defacto Cold War to Central & South America in his pursuit of a Socialist Empire and I fear this ambassadorial pick will play right into his hands.