Beware Of CAIR
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Homeland Security: You'd think the Council on American-Islamic Relations would be savoring the results of an election that favors its agenda. Instead, it's having to do major damage control.
Over the past several months, the Washington-based pressure group has suffered a series of punishing blows to its reputation as a self-proclaimed "moderate" voice for Muslim-Americans. In the latest setback, a "Dear Colleague" letter sent out to every House member warns lawmakers and their staffs to "think twice" about meeting with CAIR officials.
"The FBI has cut ties with them," the letter says. "There are indications" CAIR has links to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group.
The letter, signed by five Republicans, including the head of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, is attached to an article by a homeland-security news service. It reports that the FBI has been canceling outreach events across the country with CAIR, following a recent directive from headquarters to cut ties with the group.
It's a major policy shift at the FBI, which has appeased the notoriously litigious CAIR since 9/11. The group aggressively attacks critics with threats of boycotts and discrimination lawsuits.
The marginalization of CAIR, which has enjoyed astonishing access to official Washington, comes after the successful prosecution of leaders of a U.S. Muslim charity that funneled millions to Hamas terrorists. CAIR and its co-founder Omar Ahmed were named unindicted co-conspirators in that Holy Land Foundation case.
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, moreover, was caught on tape participating in a meeting with Hamas leaders to disguise payments as charity. During the trial, the FBI described CAIR as a front group for Islamic extremists.
It just gets worse for CAIR. Former clients of the group are suing it for fraud. The Muslims say CAIR, which claims to be an advocate for Muslim rights, extorted thousands of dollars from them in a scam in which CAIR said it would help them get U.S. citizenship.
According to the federal lawsuit, CAIR directed an unlicensed lawyer to handle their immigration cases. The phony lawyer shook them down for their life savings and bungled their paperwork. When the victims said they would go to the media, the suit charges, CAIR's board threatened to sue them and forced them to sign releases.
Such aggressive tactics are typical of CAIR. The group has threatened CEOs who don't kowtow to its demands to Islamize the workplace and airlines trying to protect passengers from terrorism. It's bullied, as well, scores of critics on TV and talk radio, even getting some hosts fired. Thankfully, the threats are no longer working.
Email
Friday, January 30, 2009
An Israeli Churchill
An Israeli Churchill
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: The comparisons between Israeli electoral front-runner Benjamin Netanyahu and Winston Churchill are all too obvious. Too bad statesmen who have learned history's lessons are so rare.
As British historian Graham Stewart notes in his 1999 book "Burying Caesar," chronicling the 1930s political rivalry between Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, Churchill, "in contrast to many of his colleagues, anticipated the problem of a resurgent Germany even before Hitler's ambitions had become more fully evident." Stewart points out that Churchill made his first House of Commons speech on the subject no later than November 1932.
It was not the first example of the Last Lion's remarkable prescience. As another acclaimed British historian, Paul Johnson, observed in his sweeping history of the 20th century, "Modern Times," regarding the rise of Lenin in Russia, all but one Western politician failed "to grasp the enormous significance of the establishment of this new type of totalitarian dictatorship, or the long-term effect of its implantation."
Johnson said the exception was Churchill, whose strong sense of history caused him to realize "a fatal watershed was being reached." In 1918, he said Lenin and Trotsky should be hanged and the next spring he argued that of all history's tyrannies, "the Bolshevik tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, the most degrading."
As former Israeli prime minister and current Likud Party head Bibi Netanyahu enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls a week and a half before election day, his words of warning regarding Iran should remind the free world of how Churchill's advice went unheeded for so long — at the cost of millions of innocent lives.
Speaking to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, Netanyahu cautioned that economic woes are distracting the West from a far greater danger. The former finance minister said that while global economic woes are reversible, "the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a fanatic radical regime" is not.
"We have never had, since the dawn of the nuclear age, nuclear weapons in the hands of such a fanatical regime," Netanyahu added. Stopping Tehran "remains the greatest challenge facing the leaders of the 21st century at the beginning of the 21st century."
For years most of the world has dithered in regard to Iran. Deluded governments still believe that an Islamofascist regime awaiting the coming of the 12th imam and an apocalyptic holy war can respond to diplomatic carrots and sticks with rationality.
Fortunately Israel, the nation that has the most to lose from a nuclear Iran, may soon be led by perhaps the sole 21st century statesman who possesses a strong, Churchillian sense of history.
Email
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:20 PM PT
War On Terror: The comparisons between Israeli electoral front-runner Benjamin Netanyahu and Winston Churchill are all too obvious. Too bad statesmen who have learned history's lessons are so rare.
As British historian Graham Stewart notes in his 1999 book "Burying Caesar," chronicling the 1930s political rivalry between Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, Churchill, "in contrast to many of his colleagues, anticipated the problem of a resurgent Germany even before Hitler's ambitions had become more fully evident." Stewart points out that Churchill made his first House of Commons speech on the subject no later than November 1932.
It was not the first example of the Last Lion's remarkable prescience. As another acclaimed British historian, Paul Johnson, observed in his sweeping history of the 20th century, "Modern Times," regarding the rise of Lenin in Russia, all but one Western politician failed "to grasp the enormous significance of the establishment of this new type of totalitarian dictatorship, or the long-term effect of its implantation."
Johnson said the exception was Churchill, whose strong sense of history caused him to realize "a fatal watershed was being reached." In 1918, he said Lenin and Trotsky should be hanged and the next spring he argued that of all history's tyrannies, "the Bolshevik tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, the most degrading."
As former Israeli prime minister and current Likud Party head Bibi Netanyahu enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls a week and a half before election day, his words of warning regarding Iran should remind the free world of how Churchill's advice went unheeded for so long — at the cost of millions of innocent lives.
Speaking to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, Netanyahu cautioned that economic woes are distracting the West from a far greater danger. The former finance minister said that while global economic woes are reversible, "the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a fanatic radical regime" is not.
"We have never had, since the dawn of the nuclear age, nuclear weapons in the hands of such a fanatical regime," Netanyahu added. Stopping Tehran "remains the greatest challenge facing the leaders of the 21st century at the beginning of the 21st century."
For years most of the world has dithered in regard to Iran. Deluded governments still believe that an Islamofascist regime awaiting the coming of the 12th imam and an apocalyptic holy war can respond to diplomatic carrots and sticks with rationality.
Fortunately Israel, the nation that has the most to lose from a nuclear Iran, may soon be led by perhaps the sole 21st century statesman who possesses a strong, Churchillian sense of history.
RUSH " HOPE HE FAILS" ABOUT OBAMA
updated 9:40 a.m. HT, Fri., Jan. 30, 2009
NEW YORK - For all the talk of new politics and a new start with a new administration, the media person who has emerged as the chief voice of opposition during the first week of Barack Obama's presidency — Rush Limbaugh — has been doing this for 20 years.
The talk-radio titan said, days before Obama was sworn in, that he hoped Obama failed because he didn't believe in the incoming president's policies.
It's kept him in the headlines ever since, to the point where MSNBC TV on Thursday asked: "Is Rush running the GOP?" The day before, every Republican House member voted against Obama's economic stimulus plan, a bill Limbaugh has ridiculed as the "porkulus" plan.
"Obama was trying to marginalize me," Limbaugh said. "His hope was that the House and Senate Republicans would join him in denouncing me. Didn't work."
When Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Georgia Republican, tried to praise his House leadership this week by saying it's easy for talk-show hosts to stand back and throw bricks, the headline on the Politico Web site read: "House GOP member to Rush: Back off." Gingrey was so bothered by the phone calls of complaints that he visited four conservative talk-show hosts, including Limbaugh, the next day to apologize.
Limbaugh, he said, was a conservative giant and one of the "voices of the conservative movement's conscience."
Can it get any better for a personality whose business is built on buzz?
"Rush Limbaugh is first and foremost a radio performer," said Michael Harrison, publisher of the trade journal Talkers magazine, which notes that Limbaugh has been the most listened-to talk-show host since at least the mid-1990s. "He's not a political leader. He doesn't make more money by turning elections. He only exists to gather large audiences and raise more advertising revenue and he does it terrifically."
(Limbaugh is heard on some 600 radio stations across the country, and more than 14 million people listen to him at least once a week.)
Yet count columnist Michael Wolff, writing in the Huffington Post, as one who believes Limbaugh is "being played."
He could prove valuable to the president, who has sought bipartisan support for many of his plans and romanced Republicans in his first week in office. Being able to point to an opponent like Limbaugh could help him with the millions of Americans for whom the message of ending partisan bickering rang true on Election Day.
Obama even cited Limbaugh in seeking support for his economic plans.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he said. "There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats. We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
A liberal advocacy group, Americans United for Change, said Friday it was using Limbaugh's words in radio ads it was launching against three Republican senators: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Ensign of Nevada. The ads, supporting Obama's economic plan, urge voters in those states to call their senator and "tell him he represents you, not Rush Limbaugh."
Wolff wrote that he believed the dinner Obama had with conservative columnists before his inauguration was a pointed snub to Limbaugh.
"He's tried to make it out to be a political point ever since," he wrote, "but mostly he sounds like a guy who's hurt he didn't get invited to the hot party."
Asked about Wolff's comments, Limbaugh said, "Who?"
Another conservative talk-show host, William Bennett, said on CNN that Limbaugh's statement wasn't a good idea.
"The locution — `I want him to fail' — is not what you say the first week the man's been inaugurated," he said.
He noted that former President Bill Clinton used to talk about Limbaugh all the time. "It never helped Bill Clinton," Bennett said. "It certainly helped Rush."
It seemed clear that Limbaugh knew exactly what kind of impact he would make when he first said he wanted Obama to fail.
"I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: `Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,'" he said on the air. "Somebody's gotta say it."
Limbaugh, who just marked his 20th year in syndication and signed a contract last year reportedly paying him $38 million a year through 2016, has outraced his competitors to be the voice of opposition.
It could be a valuable role, or it could misread the national mood. He had mixed results last year; launching "Operation Chaos" to urge listeners to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in Democratic primaries to hurt Obama. He virulently opposed John McCain in the Republican nomination race, forging an uneasy peace when GOP voters didn't listen.
Limbaugh said the "I hope he fails" statement came after an explanation of his opposition to liberal politics.
"I want the country to succeed and the stated policies of the administration will not achieve that objective," he said. "I support the president but I opposed his policies, just as the left claimed to support the troops but opposed their mission of victory. I thus am confident that all conservatives want the country to succeed."
NEW YORK - For all the talk of new politics and a new start with a new administration, the media person who has emerged as the chief voice of opposition during the first week of Barack Obama's presidency — Rush Limbaugh — has been doing this for 20 years.
The talk-radio titan said, days before Obama was sworn in, that he hoped Obama failed because he didn't believe in the incoming president's policies.
It's kept him in the headlines ever since, to the point where MSNBC TV on Thursday asked: "Is Rush running the GOP?" The day before, every Republican House member voted against Obama's economic stimulus plan, a bill Limbaugh has ridiculed as the "porkulus" plan.
"Obama was trying to marginalize me," Limbaugh said. "His hope was that the House and Senate Republicans would join him in denouncing me. Didn't work."
When Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Georgia Republican, tried to praise his House leadership this week by saying it's easy for talk-show hosts to stand back and throw bricks, the headline on the Politico Web site read: "House GOP member to Rush: Back off." Gingrey was so bothered by the phone calls of complaints that he visited four conservative talk-show hosts, including Limbaugh, the next day to apologize.
Limbaugh, he said, was a conservative giant and one of the "voices of the conservative movement's conscience."
Can it get any better for a personality whose business is built on buzz?
"Rush Limbaugh is first and foremost a radio performer," said Michael Harrison, publisher of the trade journal Talkers magazine, which notes that Limbaugh has been the most listened-to talk-show host since at least the mid-1990s. "He's not a political leader. He doesn't make more money by turning elections. He only exists to gather large audiences and raise more advertising revenue and he does it terrifically."
(Limbaugh is heard on some 600 radio stations across the country, and more than 14 million people listen to him at least once a week.)
Yet count columnist Michael Wolff, writing in the Huffington Post, as one who believes Limbaugh is "being played."
He could prove valuable to the president, who has sought bipartisan support for many of his plans and romanced Republicans in his first week in office. Being able to point to an opponent like Limbaugh could help him with the millions of Americans for whom the message of ending partisan bickering rang true on Election Day.
Obama even cited Limbaugh in seeking support for his economic plans.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he said. "There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats. We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
A liberal advocacy group, Americans United for Change, said Friday it was using Limbaugh's words in radio ads it was launching against three Republican senators: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Ensign of Nevada. The ads, supporting Obama's economic plan, urge voters in those states to call their senator and "tell him he represents you, not Rush Limbaugh."
Wolff wrote that he believed the dinner Obama had with conservative columnists before his inauguration was a pointed snub to Limbaugh.
"He's tried to make it out to be a political point ever since," he wrote, "but mostly he sounds like a guy who's hurt he didn't get invited to the hot party."
Asked about Wolff's comments, Limbaugh said, "Who?"
Another conservative talk-show host, William Bennett, said on CNN that Limbaugh's statement wasn't a good idea.
"The locution — `I want him to fail' — is not what you say the first week the man's been inaugurated," he said.
He noted that former President Bill Clinton used to talk about Limbaugh all the time. "It never helped Bill Clinton," Bennett said. "It certainly helped Rush."
It seemed clear that Limbaugh knew exactly what kind of impact he would make when he first said he wanted Obama to fail.
"I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: `Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails,'" he said on the air. "Somebody's gotta say it."
Limbaugh, who just marked his 20th year in syndication and signed a contract last year reportedly paying him $38 million a year through 2016, has outraced his competitors to be the voice of opposition.
It could be a valuable role, or it could misread the national mood. He had mixed results last year; launching "Operation Chaos" to urge listeners to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in Democratic primaries to hurt Obama. He virulently opposed John McCain in the Republican nomination race, forging an uneasy peace when GOP voters didn't listen.
Limbaugh said the "I hope he fails" statement came after an explanation of his opposition to liberal politics.
"I want the country to succeed and the stated policies of the administration will not achieve that objective," he said. "I support the president but I opposed his policies, just as the left claimed to support the troops but opposed their mission of victory. I thus am confident that all conservatives want the country to succeed."
Thursday, January 29, 2009
IT'S CALLED GUN CONTROL
Shooting in Butte, Montana
Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders:
Butte, Montana November 5, 2007
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.
Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news..........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself........against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins, she is still alive.
Now that is Gun Control !
__________________________________________________
Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders:
Butte, Montana November 5, 2007
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.
Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news..........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself........against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins, she is still alive.
Now that is Gun Control !
__________________________________________________
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Stimulus:Result is more COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS MORE OBAMAS
Acorn's Seed Money
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Stimulus: The group that pushed banks into the risky loans that brought the economy down is now eligible for a huge chunk of stimulus cash. The stimulus plan does create jobs — for community activists.
As in any agreement, contract or piece of legislation, the devil is in the details. So it is with the stimulus package percolating in Congress.
Analysts are beginning to figure out that only a small percentage of the money will actually trickle down into the economy in the first two years, not enough to do much stimulating.
Yet in this package is a $4 billion pot for community groups like ACORN to draw upon for what are called "neighborhood stabilization activities," which include "redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes."
That is a worthy goal in a troubled economy. But money was already appropriated for that purpose in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act signed into law in 2008.
The problem for activists is the money was limited to state and local governments, where presumably there is greater transparency on how it is spent, and some measure of accountability.
Community groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now felt left out.
So their Democratic patrons in Congress have included language to expand the eligible recipients of up to $4 billion in assistance to include "nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities," which translates into groups such as ACORN.
ACORN has been accused of perpetrating voter registration fraud numerous times in the last several elections; is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the irresponsible schemes that caused a financial meltdown that American taxpayers are now paying dearly for.
This is like giving fire-prevention money to arsonists.
It was ACORN, under the cover of the Community Reinvestment Act, that intimidated banks into making risky loans to people who could not afford them in the name of "fairness."
ACORN organized to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called "ninja" loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who could not afford them.
The CRA empowered regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority and distressed neighborhoods."
It gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks, claiming they were "redlining" poor and minority neighborhoods.
The CRA was designed to increase minority homeownership. Whenever a bank wanted to grow or expand, ACORN would file complaints that the bank was not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities in providing home loans.
The agitators would then be unleashed to seal the deal — for a cut, of course. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then would buy up these bad loans, creating a market for them, and the rest is history.
A major part of ACORN's sordid history is vote fraud. ACORN has been implicated in voter fraud and bogus registration schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states.
Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in Washington state history, involving nearly 2,000 bogus voter forms. In Ohio in 2004, ACORN submitted forms for the likes of Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and someone named Jive Turkey.
In 2008, ACORN filed more than 43,000 new voter registration forms in Minnesota, where the razor-thin margin of victory for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman over former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken evaporated.
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who orchestrated the recount that gave Franken a lead six weeks after Coleman appeared to win by 725 votes on Election Day, has extensive ties to ACORN.
It's becoming clear that the stimulus package in its current form is less about jump-starting the economy than it is about pursuing a political agenda.
To give access to stimulus money to a group waist deep in the mortgage crisis and vote fraud like ACORN is, well, just plain nuts.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Stimulus: The group that pushed banks into the risky loans that brought the economy down is now eligible for a huge chunk of stimulus cash. The stimulus plan does create jobs — for community activists.
As in any agreement, contract or piece of legislation, the devil is in the details. So it is with the stimulus package percolating in Congress.
Analysts are beginning to figure out that only a small percentage of the money will actually trickle down into the economy in the first two years, not enough to do much stimulating.
Yet in this package is a $4 billion pot for community groups like ACORN to draw upon for what are called "neighborhood stabilization activities," which include "redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes."
That is a worthy goal in a troubled economy. But money was already appropriated for that purpose in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act signed into law in 2008.
The problem for activists is the money was limited to state and local governments, where presumably there is greater transparency on how it is spent, and some measure of accountability.
Community groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now felt left out.
So their Democratic patrons in Congress have included language to expand the eligible recipients of up to $4 billion in assistance to include "nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities," which translates into groups such as ACORN.
ACORN has been accused of perpetrating voter registration fraud numerous times in the last several elections; is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the irresponsible schemes that caused a financial meltdown that American taxpayers are now paying dearly for.
This is like giving fire-prevention money to arsonists.
It was ACORN, under the cover of the Community Reinvestment Act, that intimidated banks into making risky loans to people who could not afford them in the name of "fairness."
ACORN organized to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called "ninja" loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who could not afford them.
The CRA empowered regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority and distressed neighborhoods."
It gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks, claiming they were "redlining" poor and minority neighborhoods.
The CRA was designed to increase minority homeownership. Whenever a bank wanted to grow or expand, ACORN would file complaints that the bank was not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities in providing home loans.
The agitators would then be unleashed to seal the deal — for a cut, of course. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then would buy up these bad loans, creating a market for them, and the rest is history.
A major part of ACORN's sordid history is vote fraud. ACORN has been implicated in voter fraud and bogus registration schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states.
Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in Washington state history, involving nearly 2,000 bogus voter forms. In Ohio in 2004, ACORN submitted forms for the likes of Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and someone named Jive Turkey.
In 2008, ACORN filed more than 43,000 new voter registration forms in Minnesota, where the razor-thin margin of victory for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman over former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken evaporated.
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who orchestrated the recount that gave Franken a lead six weeks after Coleman appeared to win by 725 votes on Election Day, has extensive ties to ACORN.
It's becoming clear that the stimulus package in its current form is less about jump-starting the economy than it is about pursuing a political agenda.
To give access to stimulus money to a group waist deep in the mortgage crisis and vote fraud like ACORN is, well, just plain nuts.
Hear the ALARM Heed the warning
Answer The Alarm
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Iran: A regime that calls the Nazi genocide of the Jews a "big lie" will have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb later this year. Would you bet your life on "tough diplomacy"?
Why does the fact of six million Jews being massacred by Hitler so threaten Islamists?
Tehran spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told a conference on Gaza in the Shiite holy city of Qom on Tuesday that "the Holocaust is a concept coming from a big lie in order to settle a rootless regime in the heart of the Islamic world."
This latest rant from the Islamofascist regime comes in the context of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having some time ago pronounced the Holocaust a "myth," calling for the Jewish state of Israel to be wiped off the map, and Tehran's hosting of a conference of Holocaust deniers.
World sympathy over what happened to the Jews in World War II certainly helped big in achieving the establishment of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine six decades ago, to the outrage of Middle East Muslims.
But embracing the absurdity of denying the Nazis' mass slaughter won't make Israel, or the Israelis, go away.
So why does Tehran persist in doing it?
The likely answer is chilling: because those running Iran are deluded fanatics.
Ahmadinejad himself has provided plenty of proof of that in his statements suggesting the return of the 12th Imam, a Shiite apocalyptic prophecy.
That descendant of Mohammed, also known as the Mahdi, who purportedly vanished in 941 AD, is awaited by some Muslims as the future leader of a holy war against the enemies of Islam.
Ahmadinejad has said, "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi."
Doing so means that "Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society."
Indeed. Madman Mahmoud, who takes orders from Iran's ruling mullahs, has stated that Iran "should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems," he has insisted.
And Ahmadinejad has expressed these sentiments not on isolated occasions but in numerous speeches during his presidency, including remarks made before the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
These are the madmen that London's International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) this week warned will soon have produced enough fissionable material to construct an atomic bomb — and they already have acquired the plans for one, thanks to the Pakistan-based A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
They also have in the works an enhanced version of the Shahab 3 missile, with which Iran will be able to strike Israel with a destructive nuclear weapon. As their missile technology gets better, most of Europe will soon be in range.
The Iranians have long been in a state of war with their Jewish neighbors through their terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.
They have been in a de facto state of war with the United States too, helping insurgents kill our troops in Iraq and elsewhere and providing aid, training and comfort to terrorists around the world.
And yet we continue to hear the tired refrain from the West's diplomatic corps that "incentives" and economic sanctions can stop these crazed apocalyptic anti-Semites.
Today, as a new U.S. president considers talking to Iran directly, it's time for a return to the kind of clarity Ronald Reagan applied to the Cold War. As he described it: "We win. They lose."
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Iran: A regime that calls the Nazi genocide of the Jews a "big lie" will have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb later this year. Would you bet your life on "tough diplomacy"?
Why does the fact of six million Jews being massacred by Hitler so threaten Islamists?
Tehran spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told a conference on Gaza in the Shiite holy city of Qom on Tuesday that "the Holocaust is a concept coming from a big lie in order to settle a rootless regime in the heart of the Islamic world."
This latest rant from the Islamofascist regime comes in the context of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having some time ago pronounced the Holocaust a "myth," calling for the Jewish state of Israel to be wiped off the map, and Tehran's hosting of a conference of Holocaust deniers.
World sympathy over what happened to the Jews in World War II certainly helped big in achieving the establishment of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine six decades ago, to the outrage of Middle East Muslims.
But embracing the absurdity of denying the Nazis' mass slaughter won't make Israel, or the Israelis, go away.
So why does Tehran persist in doing it?
The likely answer is chilling: because those running Iran are deluded fanatics.
Ahmadinejad himself has provided plenty of proof of that in his statements suggesting the return of the 12th Imam, a Shiite apocalyptic prophecy.
That descendant of Mohammed, also known as the Mahdi, who purportedly vanished in 941 AD, is awaited by some Muslims as the future leader of a holy war against the enemies of Islam.
Ahmadinejad has said, "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi."
Doing so means that "Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society."
Indeed. Madman Mahmoud, who takes orders from Iran's ruling mullahs, has stated that Iran "should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems," he has insisted.
And Ahmadinejad has expressed these sentiments not on isolated occasions but in numerous speeches during his presidency, including remarks made before the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
These are the madmen that London's International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) this week warned will soon have produced enough fissionable material to construct an atomic bomb — and they already have acquired the plans for one, thanks to the Pakistan-based A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
They also have in the works an enhanced version of the Shahab 3 missile, with which Iran will be able to strike Israel with a destructive nuclear weapon. As their missile technology gets better, most of Europe will soon be in range.
The Iranians have long been in a state of war with their Jewish neighbors through their terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.
They have been in a de facto state of war with the United States too, helping insurgents kill our troops in Iraq and elsewhere and providing aid, training and comfort to terrorists around the world.
And yet we continue to hear the tired refrain from the West's diplomatic corps that "incentives" and economic sanctions can stop these crazed apocalyptic anti-Semites.
Today, as a new U.S. president considers talking to Iran directly, it's time for a return to the kind of clarity Ronald Reagan applied to the Cold War. As he described it: "We win. They lose."
Email To Friend |
"It's 1938, and Iran is Germany
In two weeks, Israel will pick a new government. Likud Party leader and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have a comfortable lead. His main rival, Tzipi Livni, the ruling Kadima party's foreign minister, has been sounding an alarm that hard-liner Bibi won't get along with President Obama.
Netanyahu: No illusions in 1996, and none apparently in 2008.
That actually might not be such a bad thing. As Tehran's Islamofascist regime continues on its path toward becoming a nuclear-armed power, a strong dose of tough realism in the Middle East may be just what the doctor ordered — if not in the U.S., then in Israel.
"Bibi" is the younger brother of Lt. Col. Yoni Netanyahu, the slain hero of Israel's Operation Entebbe. The raid saved over 100 Israeli and French Jewish hostages after the hijacking by Palestinian and German terrorists of an Air France flight out of Tel Aviv in 1976.
But in spite of his hawkish reputation, Netanyahu's time in power was known for pragmatism, not just a commitment to security.
He negotiated with the late PLO head Yasser Arafat, and gave most of Hebron, the largest city in the West Bank and the second-holiest site in Judaism, to Palestine. As he said after meeting with Arafat at the White House in October of 1996:
"The path to peace is through negotiations and not through violence . . . It's our hope for our children and for the children of the Palestinians as well. We know that such a peace is inextricably bound with security and that peace can progress as long as security holds."
In words that could easily have referred to the free world's present threat from Iran, Netanyahu continued: "I don't have any illusions whatsoever about the difficulties ahead. It's a very tense period, fraught with dangers right now."
When it comes to the fanatical mullahs who've ruled Iran since President Carter let the Shah be overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamist revolutionaries, Bibi sees things with clarity.
"It's 1938, and Iran is Germany . . . racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in 2006. Those words of warning came in the aftermath of the Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly calling on Israel to be wiped off the map.
Netanyahu has contended that Ahmadinejad has been "preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state" and that stopping him "is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."
Moreover, Ahmadinejad's intentions go "way beyond the destruction of Israel." According to Netanyahu, "Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction. But at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year," Iranian nukes, possibly carried by its long-range Shahab-3 missiles, "will be directed against 'the big Satan,' the U.S., and the 'moderate Satan,' Europe."
The Bush administration apparently assured current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the U.S. is somehow covertly sabotaging Iran's nuclear program with defective components.
But can the world depend on a spy operation that could easily end up botched — like so many CIA covert actions have been over the agency's long history?
Or will it take a unilateral attack by Israel against Iran's nuclear sites?
Some see Netanyahu as a kind of Winston Churchill, a warrior waiting for his moment to answer destiny's call.
Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, no fan of pre-emptive war against Muslim states, takes issue with the widely-held view of Churchill as the 20th century's most laudable historic figure.
In "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War," published last year, Buchanan depicts the cigar-chomping wartime British leader as lusting for, as Churchill once called it, "glorious, delicious war" against Germany. Yet, Buchanan asserts, "At Yalta in February 1945, Churchill gave moral legitimacy to Stalin's control of half of Europe by signing a 'Declaration on Liberated Europe.' "
Buchanan's attitude toward Churchill seems similar to many Israelis' feelings about Bibi Netanyahu. He inexplicably gave away too much to his country's enemies at the negotiating table; but faced with war, who better to have in the driver's seat?
Email To Friend
Netanyahu: No illusions in 1996, and none apparently in 2008.
That actually might not be such a bad thing. As Tehran's Islamofascist regime continues on its path toward becoming a nuclear-armed power, a strong dose of tough realism in the Middle East may be just what the doctor ordered — if not in the U.S., then in Israel.
"Bibi" is the younger brother of Lt. Col. Yoni Netanyahu, the slain hero of Israel's Operation Entebbe. The raid saved over 100 Israeli and French Jewish hostages after the hijacking by Palestinian and German terrorists of an Air France flight out of Tel Aviv in 1976.
But in spite of his hawkish reputation, Netanyahu's time in power was known for pragmatism, not just a commitment to security.
He negotiated with the late PLO head Yasser Arafat, and gave most of Hebron, the largest city in the West Bank and the second-holiest site in Judaism, to Palestine. As he said after meeting with Arafat at the White House in October of 1996:
"The path to peace is through negotiations and not through violence . . . It's our hope for our children and for the children of the Palestinians as well. We know that such a peace is inextricably bound with security and that peace can progress as long as security holds."
In words that could easily have referred to the free world's present threat from Iran, Netanyahu continued: "I don't have any illusions whatsoever about the difficulties ahead. It's a very tense period, fraught with dangers right now."
When it comes to the fanatical mullahs who've ruled Iran since President Carter let the Shah be overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamist revolutionaries, Bibi sees things with clarity.
"It's 1938, and Iran is Germany . . . racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in 2006. Those words of warning came in the aftermath of the Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly calling on Israel to be wiped off the map.
Netanyahu has contended that Ahmadinejad has been "preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state" and that stopping him "is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."
Moreover, Ahmadinejad's intentions go "way beyond the destruction of Israel." According to Netanyahu, "Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction. But at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year," Iranian nukes, possibly carried by its long-range Shahab-3 missiles, "will be directed against 'the big Satan,' the U.S., and the 'moderate Satan,' Europe."
The Bush administration apparently assured current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the U.S. is somehow covertly sabotaging Iran's nuclear program with defective components.
But can the world depend on a spy operation that could easily end up botched — like so many CIA covert actions have been over the agency's long history?
Or will it take a unilateral attack by Israel against Iran's nuclear sites?
Some see Netanyahu as a kind of Winston Churchill, a warrior waiting for his moment to answer destiny's call.
Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, no fan of pre-emptive war against Muslim states, takes issue with the widely-held view of Churchill as the 20th century's most laudable historic figure.
In "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War," published last year, Buchanan depicts the cigar-chomping wartime British leader as lusting for, as Churchill once called it, "glorious, delicious war" against Germany. Yet, Buchanan asserts, "At Yalta in February 1945, Churchill gave moral legitimacy to Stalin's control of half of Europe by signing a 'Declaration on Liberated Europe.' "
Buchanan's attitude toward Churchill seems similar to many Israelis' feelings about Bibi Netanyahu. He inexplicably gave away too much to his country's enemies at the negotiating table; but faced with war, who better to have in the driver's seat?
Email To Friend
Gitmo's Ghosts
Gitmo's Ghosts
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 23, 2009 4:20 PM PT
War on Terror: A Gitmo detainee released at Saudi Arabia's request has re-upped with al-Qaida and is now its chief of operations in Yemen. So, again, why do we want to empty the place?
If we bounce the rest of these terrorists out of Gitmo, as the president wants to do within a year, we risk recycling even more dangerous fanatics back into the jihad against us.
These people like to commit suicide. Why are we so anxious to do the same?
Gitmo terrorist Said Ali al-Shihri was released to Saudi in 2007. Within no time, he was back on the terror circuit. In fact, the FBI now suspects he helped plan last year's deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital.
He's one of at least 30 former Gitmo inmates who have resumed terrorist activities as part of the Taliban or al-Qaida, despite signing pledges to renounce violence. (Yes, we're really that dumb.)
The releases have come amid a steady stream of complaints from the media, the ACLU and the Saudis (who have a disproportionate number locked up there) about the treatment of the detainees, who are tortured daily with a limited menu of halal meals, paperback-only copies of the Quran and hard plastic soccer balls.
The Saudis assured us we could trust these hardened killers in their care, because they had a rehab program to turn them into nonviolent, productive members of society.
But the Saudi "reintegration program" for repatriated Gitmo terrorists conditions their release on an agreement not to attack the Kingdom. It's OK, however, for them to attack the West.
And that's exactly what al-Shihri did — after he went through the Saudi rehab program, which includes monthly stipends, cars, jobs and resortlike housing featuring pools and volleyball courts.
Sounds more like a resort: If we didn't know better, our ally is actually rewarding our enemies, and rehabbing them for future battle.
Many of the remaining 245-plus Gitmo detainees are Saudis and Yemenis. But fear not, Yemen also has a rehab program for terrorists that's similar to the Saudis. And one that's partly funded by the U.S. (as if these rich oil countries swimming in petro dollars can't finance their own anti-terror programs).
Yemen is the same government that secretly released a USS Cole bombing suspect not too long ago. "The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantanamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them," a U.S. official was quoted saying.
That clearly is not going to happen. We can't even trust ally Kuwait, which recently freed a Gitmo terrorist we'd released to its custody only to watch him attack innocents in Iraq. Not long after renouncing jihad, Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi turned around and blew up a police station there in a suicide mission.
The real lesson is: Don't release these killers into anyone's care. Keep them locked up in Cuba or they'll just resurface with al-Qaida or the Taliban and attack us again.
Some argue that there's a new commander in chief now, and new rules in the war on terror. So deal with it.
While it is his prerogative to change the rules, the enemy is operating under old rules — 1,400-year-old rules, to be exact — and it's not changing its tactics. And it would like nothing better than to have 245 more of its battle-hardened dogs return to the front line.
If the new commander in chief is not careful, Gitmo's ghosts may come back to haunt us all.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 23, 2009 4:20 PM PT
War on Terror: A Gitmo detainee released at Saudi Arabia's request has re-upped with al-Qaida and is now its chief of operations in Yemen. So, again, why do we want to empty the place?
If we bounce the rest of these terrorists out of Gitmo, as the president wants to do within a year, we risk recycling even more dangerous fanatics back into the jihad against us.
These people like to commit suicide. Why are we so anxious to do the same?
Gitmo terrorist Said Ali al-Shihri was released to Saudi in 2007. Within no time, he was back on the terror circuit. In fact, the FBI now suspects he helped plan last year's deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital.
He's one of at least 30 former Gitmo inmates who have resumed terrorist activities as part of the Taliban or al-Qaida, despite signing pledges to renounce violence. (Yes, we're really that dumb.)
The releases have come amid a steady stream of complaints from the media, the ACLU and the Saudis (who have a disproportionate number locked up there) about the treatment of the detainees, who are tortured daily with a limited menu of halal meals, paperback-only copies of the Quran and hard plastic soccer balls.
The Saudis assured us we could trust these hardened killers in their care, because they had a rehab program to turn them into nonviolent, productive members of society.
But the Saudi "reintegration program" for repatriated Gitmo terrorists conditions their release on an agreement not to attack the Kingdom. It's OK, however, for them to attack the West.
And that's exactly what al-Shihri did — after he went through the Saudi rehab program, which includes monthly stipends, cars, jobs and resortlike housing featuring pools and volleyball courts.
Sounds more like a resort: If we didn't know better, our ally is actually rewarding our enemies, and rehabbing them for future battle.
Many of the remaining 245-plus Gitmo detainees are Saudis and Yemenis. But fear not, Yemen also has a rehab program for terrorists that's similar to the Saudis. And one that's partly funded by the U.S. (as if these rich oil countries swimming in petro dollars can't finance their own anti-terror programs).
Yemen is the same government that secretly released a USS Cole bombing suspect not too long ago. "The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantanamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them," a U.S. official was quoted saying.
That clearly is not going to happen. We can't even trust ally Kuwait, which recently freed a Gitmo terrorist we'd released to its custody only to watch him attack innocents in Iraq. Not long after renouncing jihad, Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi turned around and blew up a police station there in a suicide mission.
The real lesson is: Don't release these killers into anyone's care. Keep them locked up in Cuba or they'll just resurface with al-Qaida or the Taliban and attack us again.
Some argue that there's a new commander in chief now, and new rules in the war on terror. So deal with it.
While it is his prerogative to change the rules, the enemy is operating under old rules — 1,400-year-old rules, to be exact — and it's not changing its tactics. And it would like nothing better than to have 245 more of its battle-hardened dogs return to the front line.
If the new commander in chief is not careful, Gitmo's ghosts may come back to haunt us all.
Email To Friend |
Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Democrats Launch
Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
By Melanie Hunter-Omar
(Updates with Limbaugh's response; more from DCCC.)
(CNSNews.com) – The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.
The petition includes a 19-second sound byte of Limbaugh, saying, “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’”
On Tuesday, in a note at the top of his Web site , Limbaugh responded to the Democrats' petition: "I am greatly puzzled. Why would the Democrats petition against me if I am doing such terrible damage to the GOP? "
Last Friday, Obama advised Republicans to stop listening to Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the administration.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama said to Republican leaders who met with the president to talk about the stimulus package. On his radio program, Limbaugh noted that just as he wants Obama to fail, Obama wants Limbaugh to fail.
DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff, blogging on the DCCC Web site, said Limbaugh has given Democrats "a preview of the outrageous Republican attacks that are on the way against President Obama and every Democrat working for change."
According to Wolff, "Limbaugh's cheap shot at President Obama might be the first by the Republican attack machine this year but we know that it won't be the last. We need every grassroots Democrat to show Rush Limbaugh and all of the Republicans what they're up against if they start attacking President Obama and Democrats who are working to end the failed GOP policies of the last eight years.
"Tell Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We'll send him your comments," Wolff wrote. “Creating real change requires every American stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's attacks -- and all of the other partisan attacks from desperate Republicans that are on the way. Let's start right here and now.”
As CNSNews.com has reported, some Democrats are talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that required equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves.
Critics of the move, including many Republicans, say Democrats want to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine to force an end to conservative talk radio.
See earlier stories:
Vote to End Fairness Doctrine Not in Works, Hoyer Says
Democrat Says Fairness Doctrine Should Extend to Cable, Satellite TV
Fairness Doctrine Vote Not Happening, House Majority Leader Says
Democratic Senator Schumer Defends Fairness Doctrine to Regulate Talk-Radio Speech
Bill Would Undercut Democrats' Push to Regulate Talk Radio
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 306 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Loading...
DancerGirl97006 at 02:04 PM - January 28, 2009
Isn't it cute how every liberal fascist like Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Madonna, Richard Dreyfuss and Matt Damon say whatever they want, whenever they want without any dissent? God (NOBODY for you liberals) forbid, ANY dissent come from an opposing viewpoint. Go ahead reinstate your little censorship doctrine, we will hold meetings instead and we will only become stronger. The Nazis used these same tactics, look where it got them. Liberalism IS is socialist fascism just the same as Hitler's Germany. Teacher's unions distort history and tell our children lies, the media is part and parcel to the little "d" party and every newspaper save a few is getting paid off to silence dissent on their pages. Hitler would be so very proud...
enigmaforever at 02:00 PM - January 28, 2009
The Nazi's The Kkk, porn dealers, and any other group or person has freedom of speech in this country. Why are the democrats so afraid of Rush? Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights that made our country great, and set us apart through history from all others. I don't care what the man has to say, whether I agree or disagree, he has a right to say it,and without the massive effort of government to suppress him. The very reason this right was put in place was so people could disagree with government. I think the the democrats need to study their history.
sickntiredofpoliticsasusual at 01:35 PM - January 28, 2009
I heard the show when Rush said he wanted Obama to fail. Dems are out of control…. The Dems have left out the part where Rush said he does not want America to become socialist because those are the policies the Dem leaders are implementing. He basically said if Obama continues to implement a marxist agenda, he wants it to fail. I AGREE. American CITIZENS regardless of party need to let their elected leaders know that it is time to be TRUTHFUL and stop trying to MISLEAD the American people. WAKE UP people. Socialism is coming if you do not stand up and make your voice heard.
trelaina at 01:32 PM - January 28, 2009
Hmmm...ok. So there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore? You've got to be kidding me with this "Fairness Doctrine" crap. There's a reason why conservative radio programs are dominant.
cdelahou at 01:29 PM - January 28, 2009
We will listen to Rush no matter how anyone tries to silence him. We heard the liberal press gush over Democrats far too long. "with liberty and justice for all........" even Rush Limbaugh.
Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
By Melanie Hunter-Omar
(Updates with Limbaugh's response; more from DCCC.)
(CNSNews.com) – The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.
The petition includes a 19-second sound byte of Limbaugh, saying, “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’”
On Tuesday, in a note at the top of his Web site , Limbaugh responded to the Democrats' petition: "I am greatly puzzled. Why would the Democrats petition against me if I am doing such terrible damage to the GOP? "
Last Friday, Obama advised Republicans to stop listening to Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the administration.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama said to Republican leaders who met with the president to talk about the stimulus package. On his radio program, Limbaugh noted that just as he wants Obama to fail, Obama wants Limbaugh to fail.
DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff, blogging on the DCCC Web site, said Limbaugh has given Democrats "a preview of the outrageous Republican attacks that are on the way against President Obama and every Democrat working for change."
According to Wolff, "Limbaugh's cheap shot at President Obama might be the first by the Republican attack machine this year but we know that it won't be the last. We need every grassroots Democrat to show Rush Limbaugh and all of the Republicans what they're up against if they start attacking President Obama and Democrats who are working to end the failed GOP policies of the last eight years.
"Tell Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We'll send him your comments," Wolff wrote. “Creating real change requires every American stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's attacks -- and all of the other partisan attacks from desperate Republicans that are on the way. Let's start right here and now.”
As CNSNews.com has reported, some Democrats are talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that required equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves.
Critics of the move, including many Republicans, say Democrats want to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine to force an end to conservative talk radio.
See earlier stories:
Vote to End Fairness Doctrine Not in Works, Hoyer Says
Democrat Says Fairness Doctrine Should Extend to Cable, Satellite TV
Fairness Doctrine Vote Not Happening, House Majority Leader Says
Democratic Senator Schumer Defends Fairness Doctrine to Regulate Talk-Radio Speech
Bill Would Undercut Democrats' Push to Regulate Talk Radio
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 306 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Loading...
DancerGirl97006 at 02:04 PM - January 28, 2009
Isn't it cute how every liberal fascist like Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Madonna, Richard Dreyfuss and Matt Damon say whatever they want, whenever they want without any dissent? God (NOBODY for you liberals) forbid, ANY dissent come from an opposing viewpoint. Go ahead reinstate your little censorship doctrine, we will hold meetings instead and we will only become stronger. The Nazis used these same tactics, look where it got them. Liberalism IS is socialist fascism just the same as Hitler's Germany. Teacher's unions distort history and tell our children lies, the media is part and parcel to the little "d" party and every newspaper save a few is getting paid off to silence dissent on their pages. Hitler would be so very proud...
enigmaforever at 02:00 PM - January 28, 2009
The Nazi's The Kkk, porn dealers, and any other group or person has freedom of speech in this country. Why are the democrats so afraid of Rush? Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights that made our country great, and set us apart through history from all others. I don't care what the man has to say, whether I agree or disagree, he has a right to say it,and without the massive effort of government to suppress him. The very reason this right was put in place was so people could disagree with government. I think the the democrats need to study their history.
sickntiredofpoliticsasusual at 01:35 PM - January 28, 2009
I heard the show when Rush said he wanted Obama to fail. Dems are out of control…. The Dems have left out the part where Rush said he does not want America to become socialist because those are the policies the Dem leaders are implementing. He basically said if Obama continues to implement a marxist agenda, he wants it to fail. I AGREE. American CITIZENS regardless of party need to let their elected leaders know that it is time to be TRUTHFUL and stop trying to MISLEAD the American people. WAKE UP people. Socialism is coming if you do not stand up and make your voice heard.
trelaina at 01:32 PM - January 28, 2009
Hmmm...ok. So there is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore? You've got to be kidding me with this "Fairness Doctrine" crap. There's a reason why conservative radio programs are dominant.
cdelahou at 01:29 PM - January 28, 2009
We will listen to Rush no matter how anyone tries to silence him. We heard the liberal press gush over Democrats far too long. "with liberty and justice for all........" even Rush Limbaugh.
'Help Stop Rush' petition.
Home About Us Contact Us
News
Politics National International Culture CNSNews TV
On the Spot On the Scene Online with Terry Jeffrey Commentary
Cartoons
Bob Lang Eric Allie Glenn Foden Tim Kelly NewsBusters Comedy About Us
History Staff Copyright Internships Job Openings Journalism School Webmaster Subscribe
Donate
Resources
Media Research Center Eyeblast.tv Newsbusters Blog Business & Media Institute TimesWatch.org Culture and Media Institute MRC Action.org MRC Bookstore Gala and DisHonors Awards Job Openings MRC Internships RSS Feed
Home » News » Politics
CNSNews.com
Democrats Edit: Take Limbaugh's 'Want Obama to Fail' Comment Out of Context
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launches 'Help Stop Rush' petition. (From DCCC Web site)(CNSNews.com) - The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running an audio clip on its Web site that misrepresents what radio host Rush Limbaugh meant when he said on his Friday, Jan. 16 radio program that he wanted President Obama "to fail."
The audio clip, as played by the DCCC, omits a key sentence, as follows:
DCCC version: “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. [EDIT] I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking about replying to the guy, 'Okay, I”ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.'”
What Limbaugh said: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."
Limbaugh, on his Jan. 16 radio program, also made the point that no liberals hoped President Bush would succeed. Nevertheless, Limbaugh continued, Obama "is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, 'I hope he fails.' And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing."
On subsequent radio programs, Limbaugh has talked about people "misunderstanding" his remark.
On his Friday, Jan. 23 program -- reviewing the week -- Limbaugh explained that he supports Obama -- he just doesn't support Obama's policies. "I don't support the nationalization of the banks, which has happened. I don't support the nationalization of the auto companies. I don't support the nationalization of the mortgage business. I don't like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd running things. And I don't want that to continue," Limbaugh said.
And on his Tuesday, Jan. 27 program at one point, Limbaugh referred to President Obama telling Republicans to ignore Limbaugh: "The president of the United States hopes I fail," Limbaugh said.
Democrats and liberal groups have misrepresented Limbaugh’s words and meaning on previous occasions, most notably bashing him two years ago for using the term "phony soldiers" to describe Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison for falsifying his military records.
A group that wanted Limbaugh removed from taxpayer-supported Armed Forces Radio claimed that Limbaugh had used the term "phony soldiers" to describe all soldiers who had spoken against the Iraq war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, wading into the controversy, gave a speech on the Senate floor, condemning Limbaugh and urging his colleagues to send a letter of complaint to the chairman of Clear Channel Communications, which syndicates Limbaugh’s radio show.
Limbaugh turned tables on Reid, however. In October 2007, the radio host auctioned off the letter that Reid sent to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications demanding that Limbaugh be censured and forced to apologize to U.S. servicemen.
The winning bid on eBay was $2.1 million, which Limbaugh matched – raising $4.2 million for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which serves children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers.
See Related Stories:
Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
'Obama-Limbaugh Economic Stimulus Plan of 2009' May Now Get A Closer Look
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
No Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Post New Comment
You must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.
Free CNSNews.com Daily E-Brief
Enter your e-mail to start receiving daily CNSNews.com stories in your inbox!
Please use a valid E-Mail Address
subscribing...
CNSNews.com Toolbox
Print Article
E-mail this Article
Subscribe to E-Brief
CNSNews.com News Ticker
Share it:
x Send link to a friend:
sending...
Your Name: Your E-mail: Your Friend(s) e-mail address(s):
Add emails separated with ";"
Related Articles
'Obama-Limbaugh Economic Stimulus Plan of 2009' May Now Get A Closer Look
Bernie Goldberg: My Conversation with Rush Limbaugh on How the 'Drive-By' Media Cheered Obama
Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Bush Gives Medal of Freedom to Tony Blair and Two Other War-on-Terror Allies
CD of Satirical Songs Becomes Issue in Republican Party Chairmanship Race
NYT's 'Moderate' David Brooks Wrong about GOP, Says Heritage Foundation President
Senator Bingaman Says Conservative WTNT, WMAL Can Keep Their Talk Show Line-Ups
Rush Limbaugh Buys Belinda the Jeweler a Car to Beat Post-Election Blues
Related Videos
Rick Schroder: Obama Didn't Change My Life, Shouldn't Change My Taxes
Spike Lee to Obama: What Bush Did, Don't Do!
'F--- tha Police' Favorite Song of Obama Celebrity Campaigner
News
Politics National International Culture CNSNews TV
On the Spot On the Scene Online with Terry Jeffrey Commentary
Cartoons
Bob Lang Eric Allie Glenn Foden Tim Kelly NewsBusters Comedy About Us
History Staff Copyright Internships Job Openings Journalism School Webmaster Subscribe
Donate
Resources
Media Research Center Eyeblast.tv Newsbusters Blog Business & Media Institute TimesWatch.org Culture and Media Institute MRC Action.org MRC Bookstore Gala and DisHonors Awards Job Openings MRC Internships RSS Feed
Home » News » Politics
CNSNews.com
Democrats Edit: Take Limbaugh's 'Want Obama to Fail' Comment Out of Context
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launches 'Help Stop Rush' petition. (From DCCC Web site)(CNSNews.com) - The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running an audio clip on its Web site that misrepresents what radio host Rush Limbaugh meant when he said on his Friday, Jan. 16 radio program that he wanted President Obama "to fail."
The audio clip, as played by the DCCC, omits a key sentence, as follows:
DCCC version: “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. [EDIT] I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking about replying to the guy, 'Okay, I”ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.'”
What Limbaugh said: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."
Limbaugh, on his Jan. 16 radio program, also made the point that no liberals hoped President Bush would succeed. Nevertheless, Limbaugh continued, Obama "is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, 'I hope he fails.' And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing."
On subsequent radio programs, Limbaugh has talked about people "misunderstanding" his remark.
On his Friday, Jan. 23 program -- reviewing the week -- Limbaugh explained that he supports Obama -- he just doesn't support Obama's policies. "I don't support the nationalization of the banks, which has happened. I don't support the nationalization of the auto companies. I don't support the nationalization of the mortgage business. I don't like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd running things. And I don't want that to continue," Limbaugh said.
And on his Tuesday, Jan. 27 program at one point, Limbaugh referred to President Obama telling Republicans to ignore Limbaugh: "The president of the United States hopes I fail," Limbaugh said.
Democrats and liberal groups have misrepresented Limbaugh’s words and meaning on previous occasions, most notably bashing him two years ago for using the term "phony soldiers" to describe Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison for falsifying his military records.
A group that wanted Limbaugh removed from taxpayer-supported Armed Forces Radio claimed that Limbaugh had used the term "phony soldiers" to describe all soldiers who had spoken against the Iraq war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, wading into the controversy, gave a speech on the Senate floor, condemning Limbaugh and urging his colleagues to send a letter of complaint to the chairman of Clear Channel Communications, which syndicates Limbaugh’s radio show.
Limbaugh turned tables on Reid, however. In October 2007, the radio host auctioned off the letter that Reid sent to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications demanding that Limbaugh be censured and forced to apologize to U.S. servicemen.
The winning bid on eBay was $2.1 million, which Limbaugh matched – raising $4.2 million for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which serves children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers.
See Related Stories:
Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
'Obama-Limbaugh Economic Stimulus Plan of 2009' May Now Get A Closer Look
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
No Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Post New Comment
You must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.
Free CNSNews.com Daily E-Brief
Enter your e-mail to start receiving daily CNSNews.com stories in your inbox!
Please use a valid E-Mail Address
subscribing...
CNSNews.com Toolbox
Print Article
E-mail this Article
Subscribe to E-Brief
CNSNews.com News Ticker
Share it:
x Send link to a friend:
sending...
Your Name: Your E-mail: Your Friend(s) e-mail address(s):
Add emails separated with ";"
Related Articles
'Obama-Limbaugh Economic Stimulus Plan of 2009' May Now Get A Closer Look
Bernie Goldberg: My Conversation with Rush Limbaugh on How the 'Drive-By' Media Cheered Obama
Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Bush Gives Medal of Freedom to Tony Blair and Two Other War-on-Terror Allies
CD of Satirical Songs Becomes Issue in Republican Party Chairmanship Race
NYT's 'Moderate' David Brooks Wrong about GOP, Says Heritage Foundation President
Senator Bingaman Says Conservative WTNT, WMAL Can Keep Their Talk Show Line-Ups
Rush Limbaugh Buys Belinda the Jeweler a Car to Beat Post-Election Blues
Related Videos
Rick Schroder: Obama Didn't Change My Life, Shouldn't Change My Taxes
Spike Lee to Obama: What Bush Did, Don't Do!
'F--- tha Police' Favorite Song of Obama Celebrity Campaigner
Obama Imposes Stricter Emissions Standards
THIS IS POSITIVE PROOG THAT THE SAVIOR HAS COME TO THE RESUE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE WORD AS A WHOLE. THIS MAN, WIA LAW DEGREE AND THE BACKING OF QUISTIONABLE RESOURCES HAS NOW DECIDED THAT HE CAN DETERMINE WHAT THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY SHOULD PRODUCE. LET YS SEE HOW HE FARES WITH TOYOTA, NISSEN, ACURA, AND THE REST OF THE PRODUCERS OF FINE AUTOMOBILES.
Tuesday, Jan. 27 , 2009
*To ensure reliable delivery, be sure to add cnsnews@mail.mediaresearch.org to your spam filters and/or safe sender list.* Visit our web site at www.cnsnews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the latest CNSNews.com headlines for your Web site with the CNSNews.com scrolling headline news ticker or RSS feed. Click here to download or see examples of the ticker or here for the RSS feed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Imposes Stricter Emissions Standards on Nearly Bankrupt, Bailed-Out Auto Companies
White House (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama on Monday ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review a proposed California rule to set tougher auto tailpipe emission limits, while also ordering the Department of Transportation to develop higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. “Car efficiency standards are sinking the auto industry at the same time they’re getting a government bailout,” said Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Now the president’s policy will make that burden heavier.”
Yemen, Which Allowed al Qaeda Suspects to Escape, Now Wants Custody of 101 Gitmo Detainees
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will include the trial or release of the 250 detainees still held there, but the Yemen government has said 101 of those prisoners should be sent home. “We want our detainees back,” Mohammed Albasha, spokesman for the Yemeni Embassy in Washington, D.C., told CNSNews.com, adding that “a plot of land” has already been set aside for a center to rehabilitate the men once they are repatriated.
SCHIP Bill Does Not Require Photo ID or Proof of Citizenship for Socialized Health Care
(CNSNews.com) – A proposed change to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, currently under reauthorization by Congress, could make it possible for people to get health coverage who have only a Social Security number and not a photo ID or proof of legal residency or citizenship, such as a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport. When asked about this proposed revision in the SCHIP enrollment rules, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the legislation “is enforceable and fair, and I don’t think we need to do any better than what we’ve done.”
Andrew Jackson Would 'Roll Over in His Grave' to Hear Pelosi Talk of Nationalizing Banks, Senator Says
Washington (CNSNews.com) - Sen. Lamar Alexander (R.-Tenn.) told CNSNews.com that fellow Tennesseean Andrew Jackson would "roll over in his grave" if he could hear House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talk about the possibility of the federal government nationalizing banks. “He based his whole presidency on getting rid of the national bank,” Alexander said of Jackson.
Gingrich Says Stimulus is 'Big Government' Bill That GOP Should Not Support
(CNSNews.com) - Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the $825-billion stimulus bill being pushed by congressional Democrats is a "big government, big bureaucracy, big politician package" that is not worthy of the support of congressional Republicans.
Backing Away from Pelosi, White House Says Birth Control Funding in Stimulus Bill Was Not Obama's Idea
(CNSNews.com) - The Obama White House on Monday backed away from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s support for increased federal funding of contraception in the $825-billion stimulus bill now under consideration by Congress. That was not President Obama’s idea, a White House spokesman told CNSNews.com.
Conservatives Blast Pelosi’s Defense of Contraception Spending in Stimulus Bill
(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was criticized on Monday for saying that taxpayer money for contraception would save the states money. "At a time of financial crisis, Nancy Pelosi's solution is to kill future taxpayers," said the American Life League. “It has to rate as one of the weirdest defenses in history,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
Court Decision Boosts Party of Dutch Lawmaker Who Criticized Islam
(CNSNews.com) – Controversial Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders has seen his party’s popularity rise following a court ruling that he should stand trial for his statements about Islam. He’s accused of “inciting hatred and discrimination” after releasing a movie linking the Koran to terrorism.
With Mexico City Policy Gone, Australia Alone Restricts Abortion Aid
(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s decision to rescind the “Mexico City Policy” – which denies aid funds to non-governmental organizations that promote or perform abortions – is providing new impetus for activists in Australia who want their government to remove similar regulations in place there. The U.S. policy shift reportedly will leave Australia alone among donor nations to implement abortion-related restrictions on overseas development aid.
Tuesday, Jan. 27 , 2009
*To ensure reliable delivery, be sure to add cnsnews@mail.mediaresearch.org to your spam filters and/or safe sender list.* Visit our web site at www.cnsnews.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the latest CNSNews.com headlines for your Web site with the CNSNews.com scrolling headline news ticker or RSS feed. Click here to download or see examples of the ticker or here for the RSS feed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Imposes Stricter Emissions Standards on Nearly Bankrupt, Bailed-Out Auto Companies
White House (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama on Monday ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review a proposed California rule to set tougher auto tailpipe emission limits, while also ordering the Department of Transportation to develop higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. “Car efficiency standards are sinking the auto industry at the same time they’re getting a government bailout,” said Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Now the president’s policy will make that burden heavier.”
Yemen, Which Allowed al Qaeda Suspects to Escape, Now Wants Custody of 101 Gitmo Detainees
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s plan to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will include the trial or release of the 250 detainees still held there, but the Yemen government has said 101 of those prisoners should be sent home. “We want our detainees back,” Mohammed Albasha, spokesman for the Yemeni Embassy in Washington, D.C., told CNSNews.com, adding that “a plot of land” has already been set aside for a center to rehabilitate the men once they are repatriated.
SCHIP Bill Does Not Require Photo ID or Proof of Citizenship for Socialized Health Care
(CNSNews.com) – A proposed change to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, currently under reauthorization by Congress, could make it possible for people to get health coverage who have only a Social Security number and not a photo ID or proof of legal residency or citizenship, such as a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport. When asked about this proposed revision in the SCHIP enrollment rules, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the legislation “is enforceable and fair, and I don’t think we need to do any better than what we’ve done.”
Andrew Jackson Would 'Roll Over in His Grave' to Hear Pelosi Talk of Nationalizing Banks, Senator Says
Washington (CNSNews.com) - Sen. Lamar Alexander (R.-Tenn.) told CNSNews.com that fellow Tennesseean Andrew Jackson would "roll over in his grave" if he could hear House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talk about the possibility of the federal government nationalizing banks. “He based his whole presidency on getting rid of the national bank,” Alexander said of Jackson.
Gingrich Says Stimulus is 'Big Government' Bill That GOP Should Not Support
(CNSNews.com) - Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the $825-billion stimulus bill being pushed by congressional Democrats is a "big government, big bureaucracy, big politician package" that is not worthy of the support of congressional Republicans.
Backing Away from Pelosi, White House Says Birth Control Funding in Stimulus Bill Was Not Obama's Idea
(CNSNews.com) - The Obama White House on Monday backed away from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s support for increased federal funding of contraception in the $825-billion stimulus bill now under consideration by Congress. That was not President Obama’s idea, a White House spokesman told CNSNews.com.
Conservatives Blast Pelosi’s Defense of Contraception Spending in Stimulus Bill
(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was criticized on Monday for saying that taxpayer money for contraception would save the states money. "At a time of financial crisis, Nancy Pelosi's solution is to kill future taxpayers," said the American Life League. “It has to rate as one of the weirdest defenses in history,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
Court Decision Boosts Party of Dutch Lawmaker Who Criticized Islam
(CNSNews.com) – Controversial Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders has seen his party’s popularity rise following a court ruling that he should stand trial for his statements about Islam. He’s accused of “inciting hatred and discrimination” after releasing a movie linking the Koran to terrorism.
With Mexico City Policy Gone, Australia Alone Restricts Abortion Aid
(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s decision to rescind the “Mexico City Policy” – which denies aid funds to non-governmental organizations that promote or perform abortions – is providing new impetus for activists in Australia who want their government to remove similar regulations in place there. The U.S. policy shift reportedly will leave Australia alone among donor nations to implement abortion-related restrictions on overseas development aid.
Monday, January 26, 2009
HOORAY, HOORAY, HOORAY for Paul Harvey.
HOORAY, HOORAY, HOORAY for Paul Harvey. I myself have been wondering how a handful of people have been able to take our right to pray in public places away from us. So, agreeing with Paul, I GLADLY will forward this email AGAIN, AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Folks, this is the Month that we RE-TAKE AMERICA
********* Get Ready *********
Keep this going around the globe ... Read it and forward every time you receive it. We can't give up on this issue.
Paul Harvey and Prayer
Paul Harvey says:
This is the United States of America , a country founded on Christian principles.
One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time that the majority rules! It's time we tell them, You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right; but you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all ... Especially those who worship Him ,
God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all.
Let's make 2009 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions .. And our military forces come home from all the wars.
Keep looking up.
If you agree with this, please pass it on.
If not delete it.
Muslim terrorists quick to commit suicide.
Muslim terrorists quick to commit suicide.
A lot of people seem to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. Hmm, let's see now:
No Christmas
No cheerleaders
No television
No nude women
No car races
No golf
No football
No tailgate parties
No Wal-mart
No pork BBQ
No hotdogs
No lobster
No shellfish at all..or even frozen fish sticks
No nachos
No beer nuts
No beer!!!!!!!!!
Rags for clothes; towels for hats
Constant wailing from the guy next door because he's ill and there are no doctors
Constant wailing from the guy in the tower
More than one wife
You can't shave
Your wives can't shave
You can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung
The women have to wear baggy dresses and veils at all times
Your bride is chosen by someone else
She smells like your donkey
But your donkey has a better disposition
Then they tell you it all gets better when you die!
I mean, really...is there a mystery here?
A lot of people seem to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. Hmm, let's see now:
No Christmas
No cheerleaders
No television
No nude women
No car races
No golf
No football
No tailgate parties
No Wal-mart
No pork BBQ
No hotdogs
No lobster
No shellfish at all..or even frozen fish sticks
No nachos
No beer nuts
No beer!!!!!!!!!
Rags for clothes; towels for hats
Constant wailing from the guy next door because he's ill and there are no doctors
Constant wailing from the guy in the tower
More than one wife
You can't shave
Your wives can't shave
You can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung
The women have to wear baggy dresses and veils at all times
Your bride is chosen by someone else
She smells like your donkey
But your donkey has a better disposition
Then they tell you it all gets better when you die!
I mean, really...is there a mystery here?
Friday, January 23, 2009
COWS, THE CONSTITUTION, THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
Subject: COWS, THE CONSTITUTION, THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in this country
lately -- illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, alligators attacking
people in Florida ..
..... not me -- I concentrate on solutions for the problems -- it's a
win-win situation.
Think about this:
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad
cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada
almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state
of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they
are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our
country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq .... why don't
we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it
has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a
courthouse is this -- you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou
Shalt
Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full
of
lawyers, judges and politicians ... it creates a hostile work
environment.
Also, think about this ... if you don't want to forward this for fear of
offending someone -- YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
It is time for America to speak up!
Yep, I passed it on!
Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in this country
lately -- illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, alligators attacking
people in Florida ..
..... not me -- I concentrate on solutions for the problems -- it's a
win-win situation.
Think about this:
1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments
COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad
cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada
almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state
of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they
are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our
country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.
THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq .... why don't
we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it
has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a
courthouse is this -- you cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' 'Thou
Shalt
Not Commit Adultery' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full
of
lawyers, judges and politicians ... it creates a hostile work
environment.
Also, think about this ... if you don't want to forward this for fear of
offending someone -- YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
It is time for America to speak up!
Yep, I passed it on!
ATTACK on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,
According to Congressman Mike Pence, and others, the Pelosi-controlled Congress HAS JUST RENEWED ITS ATTACK on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and others. They're ONCE AGAIN trying to shut down conservative talk-radio by bringing back the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
“Over the past few months, some of the most powerful Democrats in Congress have made their intentions to restore this Depression-era regulation clear. However, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."
Congressman Pence isn't the only one sounding the alarm.
Senator Jim DeMint says the Left's intention and goal is to silence millions of conservative Americans who disagree with the Left's warped vision for America.
“Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America. But the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political affiliation…”
Senator John Thune tells us that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is at risk and calls this draconian attempt by Pelosi and other leftists in Congress to impose their version of so-called "fairness" on the American people a "recipe for an Orwellian disaster."
"For over 200 years, the First Amendment has allowed Americans to voice opinions, thoughts and questions of their choosing without the fear of Government reprisal. This guarantee is now threatened by some liberal ideologues who are frustrated with the free flow of ideas on talk radio. ... I advise every American to be hesitant when government officials offer to regulate the media in the name of ‘fairness.’ ... Simply put, giving power to a few to impose ‘fairness’ in the media is a recipe for an Orwellian disaster.”
And Congressman Greg Walden tells us that some Democrats seem to be INTENT on censoring speech on radio and television!
“The founders would spin in their graves at the thought of the government censoring speech on many of today’s radio and television stations. Yet that’s just what some Democratic leaders seem to be after. Whether as a throwback to the old Fairness Doctrine or under a less controversial guise, any effort to exert government control over speech on the airwaves is an insult to the principles behind the First Amendment.”
To head-off sleazy, squalid schemes by the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration to curtail free speech, conservatives in Congress have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), legislation designed to crush the poisonous head of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
According to DeMint:
"The bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would suppress free speech by requiring the government to monitor political views and decide what constitutes fair political discourse."
Make no mistake, the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration will continue their policy of obstruction and try to KILL the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009. They want NOTHING to stand in the way of their attempt to control what you and I see and hear on the radio and on television!
That's why we must go on OFFENSE RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW! We must bombard our elected officials with Blast Faxes and force them to explain exactly why they view the First Amendment as a threat!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Will Obama Or Pelosi Strike First?
The Obama Administration can bring back the Fairness Doctrine WITHOUT a vote ever taking place in Congress.
Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi:
"You give president-elect Obama a few months or a few years in office, and pretty soon he will have appointed a majority of the Federal Communications Commission. And my fear is that Commission could re-impose the Fairness Doctrine without ever having a vote in the United States House or Senate."
And what happens if the Obama Administration brings back the Fairness Doctrine?
Bill Ruder, a top official in the Kennedy Administration, told us how the Fairness Doctrine worked in the good old' days when it was simply FCC policy:
"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
But we're fighting a two-front war because Nancy Pelosi can make "fairness" the law of the land as well... AND LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ARE WORKING TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW!
Vincent R. Caravan, writing in the Valley News, said:
“Senators Diane Feinstein of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York are pushing for passage of a new Fairness Doctrine. Their aim, of course, is to end conservative dominance of the American airways and the Internet.”
Either way you slice it, the prognosis is grim.
Brian Anderson editor of the prestigious Manhattan Institute:
“The measure is just a sneaky way of shrinking the hosts like William Bennett and others of his ilk, or even getting them off the air altogether.”
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com paints an even uglier picture:
“This legislation will be crafted with one purpose in mind – control. As far as the Democratic Congress is concerned, they have no worries about control of the Big Media. Big Media dance to their Big Government schemes without being provided choreography.
“The new ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is going to be written in a way that allows the government to mobilize community organizers to do Big Government's dirty work. Groups like Media Matters and ACORN will be named to community oversight boards to police the programming of local radio stations. These groups will not be promoting ‘fairness.’ They will be promoting their own narrow and extreme political agenda. Anything that deviates from it will generate complaints and letters and calls opposing license renewals.”
Edward D. Michalek, of the Baxter Bulletin, in Mountain Home, Arkansas, wrote:
“If you've heard of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ on radio, you know there's nothing fair about it. The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than censorship, pure and simple. ... Americans can make up their own minds about who we want to listen to on the radio and not have censorship of our news.”
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
What Could Be More Fair?
Does the Pelosi Gang really believe in giving both sides of the political debate voice?
Let’s take a look at Exhibit # 1.
For years, the American people have complained about the leftist bias of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) - institutions supported by your tax dollars.
Viewers have been bombarded with attacks on orthodox Christianity; fawning, idealized depictions of Mohammad funded by the government of Saudi Arabia and the shameless nightly skewing of contemporary politics.
When decent Americans protested, the Left responded by thumbing its nose at us.
"Bias? We aren't biased. You're just paranoid. So shut up!"
Jeffrey A. Dvorkin - NPR's Ombudsman - wrote a smug, self-congratulatory column in which he actually said that nobody can legitimately point to a liberal agenda in NPR's broadcasts.
"Some listeners say they know it is there, because they can hear it, even if they can't put a finger on it."
Dvorkin is either delusional or a very bad liar.
Let's look at Exhibit #2.
Smut floods our streets and our airwaves like an open sore. When the people complain, we are told that the First Amendment is pristine and should protect even objectionable speech. (We couldn’t agree more.)
Okay... So why do liberals NOT apply the same standard to conservative political speech?
The hypocrisy is STAGGERING!
But that’s what happens when "fairness" is under left-wing management: Intellectual tyranny... the old double standard... heads we win, tails you lose.
Anything the left agrees with is "fair" by definition. Equal time is NOT required.
Anything decent conservative Americans agree with is "hate-speech" and MUST be countered with opposing views. It's only right.
In some sick way, Pelosi and Obama and leftists will probably tell the American people that they're being "tolerant" by even allowing conservative or religious viewpoints to have ANY airtime at all!
America can’t go there!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Suppression Of Speech Is Quickly Becoming The American Way.
If this push for government control of political dialogue were an isolated phenomenon, that would be one thing – no more than an odd perversion of American values in a single industry.
But suppression of free speech is rapidly becoming the American way.
With few exceptions, major newspapers, magazines and the major television networks are monolithically leftist. They steadily lose money, lay-off employees and go out of business, but they stay the course.
In a shocking majority of our colleges and universities, left-wing slogans and Marxist clichés have replaced genuine scholarship in the classroom and on the podium.
Outside speakers with a conservative message are either banned by the administration or else drowned out by shouts, shrieks, and catcalls. Some are physically attacked. Conservative students are savaged by their professors and insulted and bullied by administrators.
Back in the old days, it was the Left that took to the streets, demanding the right to teach radical politics in the classroom and demonstrate in support of revolution.
They had their revolution and, like Stalin and Castro, they turned around and immediately repressed all dissent - EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THEY IMPOSE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
Are you ready to let the federal government tell you what you can and can’t hear on the radio or read on the Internet?
Neither am I!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.
Powered by GrassTopsUSA
“Over the past few months, some of the most powerful Democrats in Congress have made their intentions to restore this Depression-era regulation clear. However, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is dangerous to suggest that the government should be in the business of rationing free speech."
Congressman Pence isn't the only one sounding the alarm.
Senator Jim DeMint says the Left's intention and goal is to silence millions of conservative Americans who disagree with the Left's warped vision for America.
“Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America. But the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political affiliation…”
Senator John Thune tells us that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is at risk and calls this draconian attempt by Pelosi and other leftists in Congress to impose their version of so-called "fairness" on the American people a "recipe for an Orwellian disaster."
"For over 200 years, the First Amendment has allowed Americans to voice opinions, thoughts and questions of their choosing without the fear of Government reprisal. This guarantee is now threatened by some liberal ideologues who are frustrated with the free flow of ideas on talk radio. ... I advise every American to be hesitant when government officials offer to regulate the media in the name of ‘fairness.’ ... Simply put, giving power to a few to impose ‘fairness’ in the media is a recipe for an Orwellian disaster.”
And Congressman Greg Walden tells us that some Democrats seem to be INTENT on censoring speech on radio and television!
“The founders would spin in their graves at the thought of the government censoring speech on many of today’s radio and television stations. Yet that’s just what some Democratic leaders seem to be after. Whether as a throwback to the old Fairness Doctrine or under a less controversial guise, any effort to exert government control over speech on the airwaves is an insult to the principles behind the First Amendment.”
To head-off sleazy, squalid schemes by the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration to curtail free speech, conservatives in Congress have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), legislation designed to crush the poisonous head of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
According to DeMint:
"The bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would suppress free speech by requiring the government to monitor political views and decide what constitutes fair political discourse."
Make no mistake, the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration will continue their policy of obstruction and try to KILL the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009. They want NOTHING to stand in the way of their attempt to control what you and I see and hear on the radio and on television!
That's why we must go on OFFENSE RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW! We must bombard our elected officials with Blast Faxes and force them to explain exactly why they view the First Amendment as a threat!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Will Obama Or Pelosi Strike First?
The Obama Administration can bring back the Fairness Doctrine WITHOUT a vote ever taking place in Congress.
Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi:
"You give president-elect Obama a few months or a few years in office, and pretty soon he will have appointed a majority of the Federal Communications Commission. And my fear is that Commission could re-impose the Fairness Doctrine without ever having a vote in the United States House or Senate."
And what happens if the Obama Administration brings back the Fairness Doctrine?
Bill Ruder, a top official in the Kennedy Administration, told us how the Fairness Doctrine worked in the good old' days when it was simply FCC policy:
"Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
But we're fighting a two-front war because Nancy Pelosi can make "fairness" the law of the land as well... AND LIBERALS IN CONGRESS ARE WORKING TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW!
Vincent R. Caravan, writing in the Valley News, said:
“Senators Diane Feinstein of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York are pushing for passage of a new Fairness Doctrine. Their aim, of course, is to end conservative dominance of the American airways and the Internet.”
Either way you slice it, the prognosis is grim.
Brian Anderson editor of the prestigious Manhattan Institute:
“The measure is just a sneaky way of shrinking the hosts like William Bennett and others of his ilk, or even getting them off the air altogether.”
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com paints an even uglier picture:
“This legislation will be crafted with one purpose in mind – control. As far as the Democratic Congress is concerned, they have no worries about control of the Big Media. Big Media dance to their Big Government schemes without being provided choreography.
“The new ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is going to be written in a way that allows the government to mobilize community organizers to do Big Government's dirty work. Groups like Media Matters and ACORN will be named to community oversight boards to police the programming of local radio stations. These groups will not be promoting ‘fairness.’ They will be promoting their own narrow and extreme political agenda. Anything that deviates from it will generate complaints and letters and calls opposing license renewals.”
Edward D. Michalek, of the Baxter Bulletin, in Mountain Home, Arkansas, wrote:
“If you've heard of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ on radio, you know there's nothing fair about it. The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than censorship, pure and simple. ... Americans can make up their own minds about who we want to listen to on the radio and not have censorship of our news.”
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
What Could Be More Fair?
Does the Pelosi Gang really believe in giving both sides of the political debate voice?
Let’s take a look at Exhibit # 1.
For years, the American people have complained about the leftist bias of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) - institutions supported by your tax dollars.
Viewers have been bombarded with attacks on orthodox Christianity; fawning, idealized depictions of Mohammad funded by the government of Saudi Arabia and the shameless nightly skewing of contemporary politics.
When decent Americans protested, the Left responded by thumbing its nose at us.
"Bias? We aren't biased. You're just paranoid. So shut up!"
Jeffrey A. Dvorkin - NPR's Ombudsman - wrote a smug, self-congratulatory column in which he actually said that nobody can legitimately point to a liberal agenda in NPR's broadcasts.
"Some listeners say they know it is there, because they can hear it, even if they can't put a finger on it."
Dvorkin is either delusional or a very bad liar.
Let's look at Exhibit #2.
Smut floods our streets and our airwaves like an open sore. When the people complain, we are told that the First Amendment is pristine and should protect even objectionable speech. (We couldn’t agree more.)
Okay... So why do liberals NOT apply the same standard to conservative political speech?
The hypocrisy is STAGGERING!
But that’s what happens when "fairness" is under left-wing management: Intellectual tyranny... the old double standard... heads we win, tails you lose.
Anything the left agrees with is "fair" by definition. Equal time is NOT required.
Anything decent conservative Americans agree with is "hate-speech" and MUST be countered with opposing views. It's only right.
In some sick way, Pelosi and Obama and leftists will probably tell the American people that they're being "tolerant" by even allowing conservative or religious viewpoints to have ANY airtime at all!
America can’t go there!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Suppression Of Speech Is Quickly Becoming The American Way.
If this push for government control of political dialogue were an isolated phenomenon, that would be one thing – no more than an odd perversion of American values in a single industry.
But suppression of free speech is rapidly becoming the American way.
With few exceptions, major newspapers, magazines and the major television networks are monolithically leftist. They steadily lose money, lay-off employees and go out of business, but they stay the course.
In a shocking majority of our colleges and universities, left-wing slogans and Marxist clichés have replaced genuine scholarship in the classroom and on the podium.
Outside speakers with a conservative message are either banned by the administration or else drowned out by shouts, shrieks, and catcalls. Some are physically attacked. Conservative students are savaged by their professors and insulted and bullied by administrators.
Back in the old days, it was the Left that took to the streets, demanding the right to teach radical politics in the classroom and demonstrate in support of revolution.
They had their revolution and, like Stalin and Castro, they turned around and immediately repressed all dissent - EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THEY IMPOSE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
Are you ready to let the federal government tell you what you can and can’t hear on the radio or read on the Internet?
Neither am I!
Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized 36 Blast Faxes to President Obama and each and every Member of the Republican and Democrat Leadership of the House and Senate!
Demand that they either explain to the American people why they fear and loath the First Amendment, or stop their obstruction and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 to the floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/broadcasterfreedomactof2009.html
AOL Members May Also Use This Hyperlink
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Yours In Freedom,
Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.org
P.S. Please help us reach as many concerned Americans as possible by forwarding this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends and family members.
The CFIF Action Alert is a service to the conservative community. If you would like to subscribe please go to www.cfif.org/signup.
Center for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus St., Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.
Powered by GrassTopsUSA
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Media Went Crazy over Obama Inauguration
Study: Media Went Crazy over Obama Inauguration
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:25 PM
LOS ANGELES — President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday.
The Texas-based Global Language Monitor said there had also been 6 million new Obama-related mentions on the Internet since December 31.
By comparison, the last U.S. presidential inauguration, of George W. Bush in January 2005, resulted in about 1,000 stories in major media worldwide, Paul JJ Payack, president of Global Language Monitor said.
"The Obama numbers are unprecedented and speak volumes to the global fascination with the new American president, his wife and young family," Payack told Reuters. "Obama is the biggest story of the century so far."
U.S. television audience ratings for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, which was shown live on major broadcast networks and cable news channels, are expected to show record numbers tuning in when they are released later on Wednesday.
Payack said that according to his group's monitoring, the Obama campaign and election story had generated 717,000 citations in print, television and radio across the world in 2008 and 254 million mentions on the Internet and in Web blogs.
That surpassed media interest generated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the global financial meltdown in 2008, the Iraq War in 2003 and the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, Payack said.
The tallies were calculated using the group's proprietary algorithm which tracks the frequency of words and phrases in the global print and electronic media, the Internet and major databases.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:25 PM
LOS ANGELES — President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday.
The Texas-based Global Language Monitor said there had also been 6 million new Obama-related mentions on the Internet since December 31.
By comparison, the last U.S. presidential inauguration, of George W. Bush in January 2005, resulted in about 1,000 stories in major media worldwide, Paul JJ Payack, president of Global Language Monitor said.
"The Obama numbers are unprecedented and speak volumes to the global fascination with the new American president, his wife and young family," Payack told Reuters. "Obama is the biggest story of the century so far."
U.S. television audience ratings for Tuesday's inauguration ceremony, which was shown live on major broadcast networks and cable news channels, are expected to show record numbers tuning in when they are released later on Wednesday.
Payack said that according to his group's monitoring, the Obama campaign and election story had generated 717,000 citations in print, television and radio across the world in 2008 and 254 million mentions on the Internet and in Web blogs.
That surpassed media interest generated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the global financial meltdown in 2008, the Iraq War in 2003 and the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, Payack said.
The tallies were calculated using the group's proprietary algorithm which tracks the frequency of words and phrases in the global print and electronic media, the Internet and major databases.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Are you Prepared?
Are you Prepared?
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard--she appointed him to track down and bring to
justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games. (Aviv 's bio is noted at end.)
He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O ' Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O' Reilly laughed, saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Now for his future predictions . . . He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will never try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke, that we have been reactionary rather than pro-active in developing strategies that are truly effective. For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can ' t bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked. Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they go to the restroom, and then detonate the bags before security even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags before people can even enter the airport.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).
The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas. Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas , they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.
The world is quickly going to become 'a different place,' and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny.'
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.
Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only a handf ul of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact and soon.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. It was Bill Clinton and his liberal agenda that fired all of the CIA's undercover agents and operatives. This was directly responsible for the failure to detect the planning for the 9-11 attacks and stop them. This failed Clinton strategy also resulted in Osama Bin Laden release from Somalia after he was offered up in a trade.
We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies.' Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase.
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well trained that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizens who know to publicly shout, 'unattended Bag.' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about ours schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases.)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel .
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off e veryone's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.
Aviv's Bio as follows:
He holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University and is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc., an international corporate intelligence and investigations firm. Interfor, Inc. is now based in New York , with offices around the world. It was founded in 1979 and provides foreign and domestic intelligence services to legal, corporate and financial communities around the world.
Interfor, Inc. also conducts investigations into terrorism and Mr. Aviv now serves as a special consultant to the U. S. Congress, and other policy makers, here within the U. S. on issues of terrorism, fraud and money laundering. Interfor's services encompass white-collar crime investigations, asset search and recovery, corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations and security and vulnerability assessments. Since its inception, Interfor's asset investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its clients.
A leading authority on terrorist networks, Mr. Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie terrorist bombing. He was featured in the recent film, Munich , as the leader of the Israeli team that tracked down the terrorists who kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team.
Before founding Interfor, Mr. Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence special operations, serving in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s.
While working as a consultant with El Al, Mr. Aviv surveyed the existing security measures in place and updated El Al's security program, making El Al the safest airline in business today. Most recently, Mr.. Aviv wrote a book entitled, 'Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business.' (2004, Harper Resource)
He has been a featured guest on ABC Nightline, FOX News, CNN, BBC Newsnight,
ZDF (German National Television) and RAI (Italian National Television) and has been featured in numerous articles in major magazines and newspapers worldwide.
Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard--she appointed him to track down and bring to
justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games. (Aviv 's bio is noted at end.)
He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O ' Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O' Reilly laughed, saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. But, unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Now for his future predictions . . . He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will never try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke, that we have been reactionary rather than pro-active in developing strategies that are truly effective. For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can ' t bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked. Every strategy we have is 'reactionary.'
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates. Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they go to the restroom, and then detonate the bags before security even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags before people can even enter the airport.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as rural America this time (Wyoming, Montana, etc.).
The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas. Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas , they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts.
The world is quickly going to become 'a different place,' and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny.'
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown' having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the U. S. He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them.
Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terroristic threats we will, inevitably, face. America still has only a handf ul of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact and soon.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to trust 'aware' citizens to help. It was Bill Clinton and his liberal agenda that fired all of the CIA's undercover agents and operatives. This was directly responsible for the failure to detect the planning for the 9-11 attacks and stop them. This failed Clinton strategy also resulted in Osama Bin Laden release from Somalia after he was offered up in a trade.
We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies.' Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase.
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well trained that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizens who know to publicly shout, 'unattended Bag.' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves. But, unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about ours schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases.)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, to respond to in the event of a terroristic emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools, too, develop plans of actions, as they do in Israel .
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan that, in the event of another terrorist attack, will immediately cut-off e veryone's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak? You need to have a plan.
Aviv's Bio as follows:
He holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University and is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc., an international corporate intelligence and investigations firm. Interfor, Inc. is now based in New York , with offices around the world. It was founded in 1979 and provides foreign and domestic intelligence services to legal, corporate and financial communities around the world.
Interfor, Inc. also conducts investigations into terrorism and Mr. Aviv now serves as a special consultant to the U. S. Congress, and other policy makers, here within the U. S. on issues of terrorism, fraud and money laundering. Interfor's services encompass white-collar crime investigations, asset search and recovery, corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations and security and vulnerability assessments. Since its inception, Interfor's asset investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its clients.
A leading authority on terrorist networks, Mr. Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie terrorist bombing. He was featured in the recent film, Munich , as the leader of the Israeli team that tracked down the terrorists who kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team.
Before founding Interfor, Mr. Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence special operations, serving in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s.
While working as a consultant with El Al, Mr. Aviv surveyed the existing security measures in place and updated El Al's security program, making El Al the safest airline in business today. Most recently, Mr.. Aviv wrote a book entitled, 'Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business.' (2004, Harper Resource)
He has been a featured guest on ABC Nightline, FOX News, CNN, BBC Newsnight,
ZDF (German National Television) and RAI (Italian National Television) and has been featured in numerous articles in major magazines and newspapers worldwide.
Stimulus Deferred
Stimulus Deferred
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Economy: President Obama has asked Congress for a big stimulus package that could be put to work right away. Congress' answer, to spend $355 billion on infrastructure and other programs, comes up way short.
The idea behind a "stimulus" package is to give the slumping economy an immediate boost. At least, that's how we've been sold on the need for $825 billion in new spending. President Obama himself, in Tuesday's inaugural address, called for "bold and swift" action on the economy.
But now comes a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that says of the $355 billion tagged by House leaders in their plan for infrastructure and other discretionary outlays, only $136 billion would be spent by October 2010.
"The rest," noted a Washington Post story, "would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended." In short, it's not stimulus at all. And it's certainly not "bold and swift."
By the Sept. 30 end of this fiscal year, only $26 billion of the total would be spent on infrastructure and just $2.64 billion of the $19 billion pledged for renewable energy and other green projects.
Meanwhile, according to the CBO, plans to expand rural and underserved areas' broadband Internet service and to build clean drinking-water projects will take years.
You might like these ideas. And you might not mind the hundreds of billions in new spending. But let's not call it stimulus. Under Congress' plan, it's pork.
It's true that the entire stimulus package is much bigger — $825 billion — than just infrastructure. And of that amount, another $275 billion will still go for tax relief, mostly to individuals, but also to manufacturers, retailers and homebuilders. Another $200 billion will be spent to expand jobless benefits and health care.
But a closer look shows that much of the tax relief will go to people who pay little or no taxes to begin with. Indeed, the House plan gives no tax breaks to households in the top 5% of incomes, even though they pay more than 60% of all taxes.
In other words, it won't be relief so much as a redistribution of income. Those who need relief the most, those in the higher income brackets who actually pay the vast majority of taxes and who often run small businesses, will get little if anything.
That leaves the infrastructure part of the stimulus plan to do the heavy lifting. Since much of it won't take place for years, the real stimulus will be elusive. The debts run up for future generations, however, will be all too real.
So much for Democrats' claims that there are literally hundreds of "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects ready to go — just add stimulus money. In fact, thanks to strict government regulations, infrastructure projects can take months, if not years, to start even when money is available.
It's not that some of the infrastructure spending won't help. It will. But relying on it to pull us out of recession isn't wise.
President Obama has requested that the bulk of the spending take place before 2011. He's hoping the plan, which mixes tax breaks with a big slug of government spending, will boost GDP by 3.7% and save or create 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs over two years.
If properly designed, it might work. But Democrats in Congress have already let down their new leader. They'd be wise to focus on stimuli that actually stimulate. Broad-based tax cuts, for instance.
It's fine to spend money on infrastructure, but cutting taxes on both businesses and individuals would improve incentives to work and invest, and bring the banks in from the sidelines to start lending again. Then, everyone wins — not just Congress' pork-barrel spenders.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Economy: President Obama has asked Congress for a big stimulus package that could be put to work right away. Congress' answer, to spend $355 billion on infrastructure and other programs, comes up way short.
The idea behind a "stimulus" package is to give the slumping economy an immediate boost. At least, that's how we've been sold on the need for $825 billion in new spending. President Obama himself, in Tuesday's inaugural address, called for "bold and swift" action on the economy.
But now comes a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that says of the $355 billion tagged by House leaders in their plan for infrastructure and other discretionary outlays, only $136 billion would be spent by October 2010.
"The rest," noted a Washington Post story, "would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended." In short, it's not stimulus at all. And it's certainly not "bold and swift."
By the Sept. 30 end of this fiscal year, only $26 billion of the total would be spent on infrastructure and just $2.64 billion of the $19 billion pledged for renewable energy and other green projects.
Meanwhile, according to the CBO, plans to expand rural and underserved areas' broadband Internet service and to build clean drinking-water projects will take years.
You might like these ideas. And you might not mind the hundreds of billions in new spending. But let's not call it stimulus. Under Congress' plan, it's pork.
It's true that the entire stimulus package is much bigger — $825 billion — than just infrastructure. And of that amount, another $275 billion will still go for tax relief, mostly to individuals, but also to manufacturers, retailers and homebuilders. Another $200 billion will be spent to expand jobless benefits and health care.
But a closer look shows that much of the tax relief will go to people who pay little or no taxes to begin with. Indeed, the House plan gives no tax breaks to households in the top 5% of incomes, even though they pay more than 60% of all taxes.
In other words, it won't be relief so much as a redistribution of income. Those who need relief the most, those in the higher income brackets who actually pay the vast majority of taxes and who often run small businesses, will get little if anything.
That leaves the infrastructure part of the stimulus plan to do the heavy lifting. Since much of it won't take place for years, the real stimulus will be elusive. The debts run up for future generations, however, will be all too real.
So much for Democrats' claims that there are literally hundreds of "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects ready to go — just add stimulus money. In fact, thanks to strict government regulations, infrastructure projects can take months, if not years, to start even when money is available.
It's not that some of the infrastructure spending won't help. It will. But relying on it to pull us out of recession isn't wise.
President Obama has requested that the bulk of the spending take place before 2011. He's hoping the plan, which mixes tax breaks with a big slug of government spending, will boost GDP by 3.7% and save or create 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs over two years.
If properly designed, it might work. But Democrats in Congress have already let down their new leader. They'd be wise to focus on stimuli that actually stimulate. Broad-based tax cuts, for instance.
It's fine to spend money on infrastructure, but cutting taxes on both businesses and individuals would improve incentives to work and invest, and bring the banks in from the sidelines to start lending again. Then, everyone wins — not just Congress' pork-barrel spenders.
Tortured Logic
WHEN IN AN ARGUMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS WHAT YOU GET WHEN ONE OF THOSE IN THE ARGUMENT IS NON-MILITARY AND LIBERAL TO BOOT WHAT YOU HAVE IS A PURE GIVE AWAY OF THE SECURITY OF THE NATION. READ THE FOLLOWING AND I BELIEVE YOU WILL AGREE, THE KNOW NOTHINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE THE RUIN FOR ALL OF US. DAA
Tortured Logic
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Military Justice: Should terrorists willing to strap explosives to their chests be freed because someone poured water down their nose? The ACLU thinks so and wants the killer of 17 American sailors freed.
Last Wednesday, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward recounted how Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the treatment of Mohammed al-Qahtani, 9/11's 20th hijacker "met the legal definition of torture" and "that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent," Crawford said.
There "was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.
Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against al-Qahtani in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward. But, she admits, "He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "
So she has kicked the can down the road, preferring to let the Obama administration decide.
Mohammed al-Qahtani, also known as Detainee 063, is a dangerous man.
He had tried to enter the U.S. via Orlando International Airport in August 2001 when he was stopped by suspicious immigration officials. Just yards away, waiting to pick him up, was Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
According to federal investigators, al-Qahtani was to have been the fifth hijacker on United Airlines Flight 93, the "muscle" that was to have guarded the cockpit door. Had he been there, the passenger rebellion that steered the 757 into a Pennsylvania field might have been unsuccessful. Had Atta collected him in Orlando, flight 93 might have reached its destination and plowed into the U.S. Capitol.
The ACLU took it a step further, claiming in a press release that the charges against another Guantanamo detainee, Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, should be dropped because he had also been "tortured" by being waterboarded. Nashiri is a notorious al-Qaida terrorist, responsible for orchestrating the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 American servicemen, as well as other attacks.
In a press release issued Thursday, the ACLU said:
"In response to the admission by Susan J. Crawford, the top official overseeing the Office of Military Commissions, that the reason she refused to send a detainee's case to trial is because 'we tortured (him),' (al-Nashiri's) military lawyers filed a motion late Wednesday in Guantanamo to withdraw the charges against Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, who is being charged for his alleged involvement in crimes including the USS Cole bombing."
This is the old "police brutality" argument that argues that if the police are deemed to have used "excessive" force in apprehending a criminal, the way to protect the community and punish the police is to let the criminal go free to commit more crimes.
In his farewell address, President Bush rightly noted that he had kept America safe in the seven years since 9/11 and mentioned the "tough decisions" that made it possible. We have documented some of the information gained and plots foiled as a result of our decision not to coddle jihadists.
We will never know how many Americans are alive today because we made the likes of al-Qahtani, al-Nashiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammed uncomfortable. But they are and we are, and it is precisely because we have been "aggressive and persistent."
We hope the new administration ignores the sob sisters and strives to keep it that way.
Tortured Logic
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Military Justice: Should terrorists willing to strap explosives to their chests be freed because someone poured water down their nose? The ACLU thinks so and wants the killer of 17 American sailors freed.
Last Wednesday, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward recounted how Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the treatment of Mohammed al-Qahtani, 9/11's 20th hijacker "met the legal definition of torture" and "that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent," Crawford said.
There "was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.
Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against al-Qahtani in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward. But, she admits, "He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "
So she has kicked the can down the road, preferring to let the Obama administration decide.
Mohammed al-Qahtani, also known as Detainee 063, is a dangerous man.
He had tried to enter the U.S. via Orlando International Airport in August 2001 when he was stopped by suspicious immigration officials. Just yards away, waiting to pick him up, was Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
According to federal investigators, al-Qahtani was to have been the fifth hijacker on United Airlines Flight 93, the "muscle" that was to have guarded the cockpit door. Had he been there, the passenger rebellion that steered the 757 into a Pennsylvania field might have been unsuccessful. Had Atta collected him in Orlando, flight 93 might have reached its destination and plowed into the U.S. Capitol.
The ACLU took it a step further, claiming in a press release that the charges against another Guantanamo detainee, Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, should be dropped because he had also been "tortured" by being waterboarded. Nashiri is a notorious al-Qaida terrorist, responsible for orchestrating the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 American servicemen, as well as other attacks.
In a press release issued Thursday, the ACLU said:
"In response to the admission by Susan J. Crawford, the top official overseeing the Office of Military Commissions, that the reason she refused to send a detainee's case to trial is because 'we tortured (him),' (al-Nashiri's) military lawyers filed a motion late Wednesday in Guantanamo to withdraw the charges against Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri, who is being charged for his alleged involvement in crimes including the USS Cole bombing."
This is the old "police brutality" argument that argues that if the police are deemed to have used "excessive" force in apprehending a criminal, the way to protect the community and punish the police is to let the criminal go free to commit more crimes.
In his farewell address, President Bush rightly noted that he had kept America safe in the seven years since 9/11 and mentioned the "tough decisions" that made it possible. We have documented some of the information gained and plots foiled as a result of our decision not to coddle jihadists.
We will never know how many Americans are alive today because we made the likes of al-Qahtani, al-Nashiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammed uncomfortable. But they are and we are, and it is precisely because we have been "aggressive and persistent."
We hope the new administration ignores the sob sisters and strives to keep it that way.
Repealing Defense of Marriage Act OBAMA
Obama White House Calls for Repealing Defense of Marriage Act
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
By Matt Cover
President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, Malia Obama, and Chief Justice John Roberts during swearing-in ceremony (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obama’s swearing-in ceremony.
The site’s “Civil Rights” section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.
In the section entitled “Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community,” the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.
“President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,” the Web site says.
“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples.” the Web site says.
Among those federal legal rights are the ability to file joint tax returns, own property, and buy health insurance together.
Obama also favors granting adoption rights to homosexual couples, saying that children benefit from a healthy home, regardless of whether the “parents” are homosexual or not.
“President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation,” the site said. “He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not,” the website reads.
Obama further promises to distribute contraceptives through the nation’s public health system, saying the move is vital to combating HIV and AIDS – and the new president wants contraceptives to be distributed in federal prisons.
“The president will support common-sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system.”
Obama renewed his pledge to expand federal hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation – an effort he spearheaded as a freshman U.S. senator. The bill that Obama introduced in the Senate, the Matthew Shepard Act, would make it a federal hate-crime to commit violence against someone because of their sexual orientation.
“President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, (and) expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act,” the site says.
Obama also wants to lift the federal ban on needle exchanges, which provides intravenous drug addicts with free, clean needles in an effort to ensure they abuse illegal drugs safely.
“The president also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.”
The new White House site confirms that Obama plans to work towards his desire to repeal a federal law that prevents homosexuals from serving in the military. Obama says that the only test for military service should be patriotism.
“The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited,” the site says.
“The president will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.”
Whether homosexuals are ever allowed to serve in the military won’t be Obama’s call, however. Only Congress can enact such a policy affecting the military.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Elblogo at 09:44 AM - January 21, 2009
America,you asked for it now maybe Rev. Wright's wish will come true.Jamuary 20,2009 a day of Infamy.
marshalp at 12:03 AM - January 21, 2009
I am a bit confused about the civil union bit. How is it different and/or similar to a marriage? What is the moral objection to homosexuals having civil unions until they are not married in a church? Maybe i'm just a little ignorant. please advice.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
By Matt Cover
President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, Malia Obama, and Chief Justice John Roberts during swearing-in ceremony (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obama’s swearing-in ceremony.
The site’s “Civil Rights” section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.
In the section entitled “Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community,” the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.
“President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,” the Web site says.
“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples.” the Web site says.
Among those federal legal rights are the ability to file joint tax returns, own property, and buy health insurance together.
Obama also favors granting adoption rights to homosexual couples, saying that children benefit from a healthy home, regardless of whether the “parents” are homosexual or not.
“President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation,” the site said. “He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not,” the website reads.
Obama further promises to distribute contraceptives through the nation’s public health system, saying the move is vital to combating HIV and AIDS – and the new president wants contraceptives to be distributed in federal prisons.
“The president will support common-sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system.”
Obama renewed his pledge to expand federal hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation – an effort he spearheaded as a freshman U.S. senator. The bill that Obama introduced in the Senate, the Matthew Shepard Act, would make it a federal hate-crime to commit violence against someone because of their sexual orientation.
“President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, (and) expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act,” the site says.
Obama also wants to lift the federal ban on needle exchanges, which provides intravenous drug addicts with free, clean needles in an effort to ensure they abuse illegal drugs safely.
“The president also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.”
The new White House site confirms that Obama plans to work towards his desire to repeal a federal law that prevents homosexuals from serving in the military. Obama says that the only test for military service should be patriotism.
“The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited,” the site says.
“The president will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.”
Whether homosexuals are ever allowed to serve in the military won’t be Obama’s call, however. Only Congress can enact such a policy affecting the military.
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-2 of 2 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Elblogo at 09:44 AM - January 21, 2009
America,you asked for it now maybe Rev. Wright's wish will come true.Jamuary 20,2009 a day of Infamy.
marshalp at 12:03 AM - January 21, 2009
I am a bit confused about the civil union bit. How is it different and/or similar to a marriage? What is the moral objection to homosexuals having civil unions until they are not married in a church? Maybe i'm just a little ignorant. please advice.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
ATHEIST HOLY DAY
FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and
Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case
against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument
was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate
presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,
"Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your
honor,how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas,
Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah,
yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do.
Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special
observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day.
Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.'
Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God,
then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and
Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case
against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument
was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate
presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,
"Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your
honor,how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas,
Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah,
yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do.
Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special
observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day.
Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.'
Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God,
then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."
BORDER AGENTS PARDONED
CNSNews.com
‘I’m Happy He’s Coming Home Soon,’ Border Agent’s Wife Says
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
President George W. Bush (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – Patty Compean’s prayers were answered Monday with the announcement that President George W. Bush was commuting the 12-year sentence of her husband, former Border Patrol Agent Jose Compean, as well as the 11-year sentence of former Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos.
“I’m just happy with the outcome. I’m happy he’s coming home soon,” Patty Compean told CNSNews.com about her husband. “I’m just trying to take it all in.”
The conviction of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who have already served more than two years of their sentences for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler in the buttocks, ignited a political firestorm prompting members of Congress from both parties to call for President Bush to issue a pardon or commutation.
The two men will not be released until March 20, said Patty Compean. As of Monday afternoon, she said, she had not had a chance to talk to her husband. She would have preferred if his release date were sooner, she said, but “right now all I wanted is for him to come home.”
Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was shot along the U.S.-Mexico border near El Paso in February 2005, had been hauling 743 pounds of marijuana in a van when Ramos and Compean stopped him and then pursued him on foot. The smuggler, who got away into Mexico at the time, suffered a shattered urethra from the shooting.
Aldrete-Davila was later sought out by federal prosecutors and the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s office that investigated the matter. They wanted him to return to the United States – not to face justice – but to be the star witness against the two border agents.
Prosecutors gave Aldrete-Davila a humanitarian pass to enter and exit the United States unsupervised. Aldrete-Davila then smuggled more drugs into the country. The jury in the Ramos and Compean trial was not allowed to learn about Aldrete-Davila’s second smuggling load, because prosecutors convinced the judge in the case that the information could jeopardize a future case against Aldrete-Davila.
Last year, Aldrete-Davila pleaded guilty to the subsequent drug smuggling operation and was sentenced to nine years in prison.
Both the House and Senate held hearings into the case against Ramos and Compean. Senators grilled Johnny Sutton, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, for prosecuting the agents.
Sutton defended the case as a righteous prosecution, because he said the agents shot an unarmed man and did not realize he was carrying drugs at the time they shot him.
Sutton issued the following statement on Monday after President Bush commuted the border agents’ prison sentences:
Today, the President exercised his power under the Constitution to grant executive clemency to former Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. Like the trial judge and the court that reviewed the cases on appeal, President Bush found that Compean and Ramos were justly convicted of serious crimes and that their status as convicted felons should remain in place.
After careful thought and deliberation, President Bush has concluded that Compean and Ramos have been sufficiently punished, and that the remainder of their terms should be spent on supervised release. I have only the highest respect for the President’s decision to allow their convictions to stand, but to reduce the time they must spend in prison.
Members of Congress expressed their happiness that Bush commuted the sentences of Ramos and Compean.
“Our prayers have been answered,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who had repeatedly and forcefully called on President Bush to show mercy on the former agents. “This is not just a day of celebration for the families but it is a victory for all Americans, while acknowledging our system is flawed, to see that if they are involved, if they speak up and utilize their freedom, injustices can be corrected.”
“The hearts of all patriotic Americans are filled with joy at the announcement that our brave border defenders, Ramos and Compean, will be freed from unjust captivity,” Rohrabacher said.
“We are grateful at long last that President Bush has done the right thing by these men and their families and the president should be included in our prayers of gratitude,” Rohrabacher said. “I am humbled by the sincerity of support I saw over the last two and half years for Ramos and Compean from both sides of the political aisle and everyday Americans throughout our country.”
Joe Loya, Ignacio Ramos’ father-in-law, expressed relief about the case.
“After four years of fighting this, it’s taken a toll on me and my daughter, and really the whole family,” Loya told the Associated Press. Of his daughter, he said, “She could hardly speak.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 5 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Miguel at 04:23 PM - January 20, 2009
It appears you are not taking comments or you are censoring all of them. I'd left one earlier, but needed to copy it. However, there was a rush and I couldn't copy it at that time. Now it and all others are gone. What's up with this site?
frank3108 at 04:17 PM - January 20, 2009
It's about time. They should be released NOW!
HernandezUSA at 03:22 PM - January 20, 2009
Congratulations; on being set free and we are glad we could help support the cause for these heroes.
Miguel at 02:22 PM - January 20, 2009
Bush was wrong to only commute these vicious sentences. Bush and Sutton have helped kill many American kids via their support for drug smuggling implicit in these sentences. As a high school teacher in Cal., I have witnessed around a hundred kids go down to drugs. They've died or gone on to a living death of drug addiction, prison and rotten housing. Massive numbers of young people die in and around illegal drugs across America, courtesy of Sutton. In this, Sutton also supports the drug gangs of Mexico in his action, thus killing many Mexicans, too. So don't tell me that Sutton cares about the "Good of The People". Sutton has caved to liberal agendas in their support of crime and death. Wherever liberals have gained power over time, like Detroit, there is vast crime, government corruption, drugs, destruction of the family, poverty, economic destruction, horrific schools (whose job is clearly is to stupify, not educate), no college graduates, violence, rape and abortions. So,
HernandezUSA at 11:40 AM - January 20, 2009
We feel happy and relief for your Families and wish we could shake the hands of these American heroes. Let's see if we can Obama to clear their records clean, so these men get back to work and help support their courages families.
‘I’m Happy He’s Coming Home Soon,’ Border Agent’s Wife Says
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
President George W. Bush (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – Patty Compean’s prayers were answered Monday with the announcement that President George W. Bush was commuting the 12-year sentence of her husband, former Border Patrol Agent Jose Compean, as well as the 11-year sentence of former Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos.
“I’m just happy with the outcome. I’m happy he’s coming home soon,” Patty Compean told CNSNews.com about her husband. “I’m just trying to take it all in.”
The conviction of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who have already served more than two years of their sentences for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler in the buttocks, ignited a political firestorm prompting members of Congress from both parties to call for President Bush to issue a pardon or commutation.
The two men will not be released until March 20, said Patty Compean. As of Monday afternoon, she said, she had not had a chance to talk to her husband. She would have preferred if his release date were sooner, she said, but “right now all I wanted is for him to come home.”
Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was shot along the U.S.-Mexico border near El Paso in February 2005, had been hauling 743 pounds of marijuana in a van when Ramos and Compean stopped him and then pursued him on foot. The smuggler, who got away into Mexico at the time, suffered a shattered urethra from the shooting.
Aldrete-Davila was later sought out by federal prosecutors and the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s office that investigated the matter. They wanted him to return to the United States – not to face justice – but to be the star witness against the two border agents.
Prosecutors gave Aldrete-Davila a humanitarian pass to enter and exit the United States unsupervised. Aldrete-Davila then smuggled more drugs into the country. The jury in the Ramos and Compean trial was not allowed to learn about Aldrete-Davila’s second smuggling load, because prosecutors convinced the judge in the case that the information could jeopardize a future case against Aldrete-Davila.
Last year, Aldrete-Davila pleaded guilty to the subsequent drug smuggling operation and was sentenced to nine years in prison.
Both the House and Senate held hearings into the case against Ramos and Compean. Senators grilled Johnny Sutton, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, for prosecuting the agents.
Sutton defended the case as a righteous prosecution, because he said the agents shot an unarmed man and did not realize he was carrying drugs at the time they shot him.
Sutton issued the following statement on Monday after President Bush commuted the border agents’ prison sentences:
Today, the President exercised his power under the Constitution to grant executive clemency to former Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. Like the trial judge and the court that reviewed the cases on appeal, President Bush found that Compean and Ramos were justly convicted of serious crimes and that their status as convicted felons should remain in place.
After careful thought and deliberation, President Bush has concluded that Compean and Ramos have been sufficiently punished, and that the remainder of their terms should be spent on supervised release. I have only the highest respect for the President’s decision to allow their convictions to stand, but to reduce the time they must spend in prison.
Members of Congress expressed their happiness that Bush commuted the sentences of Ramos and Compean.
“Our prayers have been answered,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who had repeatedly and forcefully called on President Bush to show mercy on the former agents. “This is not just a day of celebration for the families but it is a victory for all Americans, while acknowledging our system is flawed, to see that if they are involved, if they speak up and utilize their freedom, injustices can be corrected.”
“The hearts of all patriotic Americans are filled with joy at the announcement that our brave border defenders, Ramos and Compean, will be freed from unjust captivity,” Rohrabacher said.
“We are grateful at long last that President Bush has done the right thing by these men and their families and the president should be included in our prayers of gratitude,” Rohrabacher said. “I am humbled by the sincerity of support I saw over the last two and half years for Ramos and Compean from both sides of the political aisle and everyday Americans throughout our country.”
Joe Loya, Ignacio Ramos’ father-in-law, expressed relief about the case.
“After four years of fighting this, it’s taken a toll on me and my daughter, and really the whole family,” Loya told the Associated Press. Of his daughter, he said, “She could hardly speak.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 5 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Miguel at 04:23 PM - January 20, 2009
It appears you are not taking comments or you are censoring all of them. I'd left one earlier, but needed to copy it. However, there was a rush and I couldn't copy it at that time. Now it and all others are gone. What's up with this site?
frank3108 at 04:17 PM - January 20, 2009
It's about time. They should be released NOW!
HernandezUSA at 03:22 PM - January 20, 2009
Congratulations; on being set free and we are glad we could help support the cause for these heroes.
Miguel at 02:22 PM - January 20, 2009
Bush was wrong to only commute these vicious sentences. Bush and Sutton have helped kill many American kids via their support for drug smuggling implicit in these sentences. As a high school teacher in Cal., I have witnessed around a hundred kids go down to drugs. They've died or gone on to a living death of drug addiction, prison and rotten housing. Massive numbers of young people die in and around illegal drugs across America, courtesy of Sutton. In this, Sutton also supports the drug gangs of Mexico in his action, thus killing many Mexicans, too. So don't tell me that Sutton cares about the "Good of The People". Sutton has caved to liberal agendas in their support of crime and death. Wherever liberals have gained power over time, like Detroit, there is vast crime, government corruption, drugs, destruction of the family, poverty, economic destruction, horrific schools (whose job is clearly is to stupify, not educate), no college graduates, violence, rape and abortions. So,
HernandezUSA at 11:40 AM - January 20, 2009
We feel happy and relief for your Families and wish we could shake the hands of these American heroes. Let's see if we can Obama to clear their records clean, so these men get back to work and help support their courages families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)