DC Mayor Refuses Citizens a Vote on Marriage

In a hearing today on “Greater Autonomy for the Nation’s Capital,” Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty stated he does not believe citizens in his city should have the right to vote on marriage.

Asked if he would be in favor of a vote on a referendum against same-sex “marriage” in the District of Columbia, he responded, “The short answer is ‘no.’”

Most states in the U.S. have held referenda on marriage, voted on by the citizens.

The question was posed by Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah,) who reminded Mayor Fenty that 31 states have already allowed citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. In every case, traditional marriage was preserved.

Mayor Fenty went on to say that the D.C. Council was capable of making a decision regarding same- sex “marriage” since the council was elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray, also on the panel of witnesses, echoed that sentiment.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, said, “The D.C. Council reeks of rank hypocrisy. For years they have demanded that D.C. citizens should have the right to vote for congressional representation, which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Yet now they are denying D.C. citizens the right to vote on marriage, an institution so fundamental to America’s well-being that territories were not allowed to become states unless they kept marriage between one man and one woman.

“D.C. officials are proving, once again, why they need congressional oversight. They need to be reminded that citizens are not serfs.”

---

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Third Party Power

The election in NY-23rd is about third party power, and professional politicians are trying to suppress that fact. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want the public to realize this, for obvious reasons. The media are complicit with establishment insiders, so they are not saying anything. And the bloggers, bless them, who would ordinarily be the purveyors of truth, don’t have the length and depth of political experience to understand what is going on. It requires an understanding of the legal mechanics of candidate selection and a long memory…

Let us be perfectly clear about the situation in New York’s 23rd Congressional District special election. Three distinct political parties with legal status in New York put up viable candidates:

• The Republican Party nominated New York State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava in a smoke-filled room deal.
• The Democratic Party nominated community activist and 30-year practicing lawyer Bill Owens.
• The Conservative Party nominated community leader, business entrepreneur, and Certified Public Accountant Doug Hoffman.

The fresh-faced Hoffman, reminiscent of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, has the most appeal with voters in the district weary of government excess (almost an art form in the state of New York), and has pulled ahead in the polls. The Conservative Party selected the most likable candidate and has the best message, and so they are ahead. It is as simple as that. It is a reprise of the election of US Senator James Buckley on the Conservative line in 1970, when he proved more popular than both the Republican and Democratic candidates.

There is nothing sacred about the Republican and Democratic parties. Political party organizations are not provided for in the Constitution of the United States. They are merely incorporated entities that provide for pooling money and manpower to support candidates for public office. They have acquired the veneer of “official” status by being around for a long time, but they are no more “official” than any newly minted party, which can be formed under state election law by meeting certain requirements.

For example, to put a name on the ballot in New York State requires the signatures of five percent of the registered voters in the juridiction.  As of April 1, 2009, there were 15,339 registered voters in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.  So volunteers had to collect valid signatures from at least 767 registered voters on “designating petitions” for Doug Hoffman to run for Congress.

Do you understand how feasible that is? Twenty people collecting 10 signatures per night for one week can collect 1400 signatures. That is easily done by going door to door in your neighborhood. Or you can just stand outside the local grocery store and collect signatures from shoppers as they enter. The totals rack up quickly. It is no more difficult than, say, selling Girl Scout cookies. And your kids can do that.

One advantage that the two so-called “major” political parties have is that they retain a cadre of volunteers trained in the collection of signatures, which have to meet certain book-keeping requirements. For instance, the person has to sign the petition in exactly the same way that his or her name appears on the voter registration. So you need to have that information before you start your rounds, but that information is a matter of public record, and the state cannot deny you access to it. The other advantage of the “major” parties is that they have established fund-raising channels. And as we see in NY-23rd, that isn’t doing them a lot of good in the face of an outraged populace.

On Thursday, February 19 of this year, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli called for a “Chicago Tea Party” while reporting from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. Within two short months, powered only by bloggers, a national “tea party” movement had organized across the country to hold rallies on tax day, April 15. Along about the 4th of July, another round of tea parties erupted across America, and sentiment grew for a march on Washington. A little over two months after that, one of the largest grass-roots crowds ever seen in the District of Columbia marched on the Capitol.

What if…

What if, instead of attending rallies, or marching on Washington, these aroused patriots had been carrying designating petitions? The whole political landscape of America could be changed within one year! And that is the 900 pound gorilla in the political closet that the Republicans and Democrats do not want you to know about or think about. It scares them witless.

All the talking heads and political hacks are painting the congressional race in NY-23rd as a rift in the Republican ranks. It is not. It is a third party candidate proving that the Republicans and Democrats can be made irrelevant in the face of tea party power. It is proving this in the full glare of the national spotlight. And the only way that the entrenched politicians can save their own bacon is by spinning the story to distract the public from the obvious truth. All the king-makers’ horses and all the king-makers’ men cannot defeat an honest tea party patriot once ordinary Americans wake up.

Also on American Daughter

 

More Obama Worship – This time in Columbia, MD (To the Tune of ‘This Little Light of Mine’)

Those of you who are like me, and grew up singing Gospel music in Church will be horrified by this. I’m still trying to pick up my jaw off the floor.

 

Obama’s filing against 9/11 families: so bad it’s good

Bizarre amicus brief totally demolishes the Second Circuit’s dismissal of the families’ suit, then replaces it with the most mendacious stupidity imaginable. Now the Supreme Court will HAVE to hear the case, just to avoid the implication that it accepted this garbage.

9/11 families were stunned this week to learn that President Obama is asking the Supreme Court NOT to review their effort to recover damages from the government of Saudia Arabia and from several Saudi princes for funding al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on America. That the defendants did funnel vast sums of money to al Qaeda was accepted as a given by the appellate court, as was the fact that al Qaeda was known to be dedicated to and engaged in violent attacks against America. So what was the Obama administration’s reason for siding with the Saudis?

Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s amicus brief to the Supreme Court had to admit that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in its grounds for denying the suit against the Saudi princes. No, the fact that the princes did not actually direct the al Qaeda attack on the United States does not relieve them of liability for attacks that they funded. The precedent on this is clear. As long as the defendant knew “that the brunt of the injury” from his tortious act would be felt in America, then:

… he must ‘reasonably anticipate being haled into court there’ to answer for his actions. [Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790. Cited on Kagan’s p. 18.]

Nevertheless, said Kagan, she could think of a way around the appellate court’s utter failure to get the heart of the case right. The families’ suit falls under the 1976 FSIA law that establishes exceptions to the principle of sovereign immunity. This law does not allow jury trials. Thus while the appellate court was clearly wrong to say that the suit should not be heard, Kagan suggests that there are snippets in the ruling that can be read as the appellate court acting in its role of trier of fact, and thus ruling against the families for providing insufficient evidence.

In other words, instead of seeing the Second Circuit as rejecting the basis of the suit, we should see them as accepting the suit, and ruling against it on the substance. To make her argument that the appellate court actually did try the facts, she quotes the Second Circuit’s statement that:

Conclusory allegations that [Prince Turki] donated money to charities, without specific factual allegations that he knew they were funneling money to terrorists, do not suffice.

But of course the families DID marshal reasons why Turki could be expected to know that his donations were going to al Qaeda, as indicated by the appellate court’s further statements that there was no personal jurisdiction even if the defendants did “know that their money would be diverted to al Qaeda,” or were “aware of Osama bin Laden’s public announcements of jihad against the United States.” (Cited in the families’ reply brief, p.8, and in Kagan’s brief, p. 19, respectively.)

For Kagan to pretend that the Second Circuit acted as a sufficient trier of fact, when it explicitly asserted that the facts don’t matter, is just an attempt to mislead the Court. The evidence that the Saudi Princes knew they were funding al Qaeda has yet to be considered by U.S. courts, even though Kagan herself admits that if they did know, they should be held liable.

The families respond

Of course the families are angry that Obama is blocking their access to the courts, despite their legitimate claims under U.S. law:

The Administration’s filing mocks our system of justice and strikes a blow against the public’s right to know the facts about who financed and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that result. …

The Administration’s filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case — one that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder of our family members — does not warrant the Supreme Court’s time.

This at the same time as Obama insists that al Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay must be granted access to U.S. courts. Concocted rights for terrorists, yes. Following the law for the victims of terrorism, no.

On Saudi state liability, Kagan again misleads to the point of outright dishonesty

Here too, Kagan is forced to start out by noting that the grounds on which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the families’ claims is not valid. The circuit court held that damages for terrorist acts have to be brought under the FSIA law’s special exception for terrorist acts, which requires that the state defendant be designated by the State Department as a terror supporting state. Since Saudi Arabia has not been so designated, suit cannot be brought under this provision, end of case.

Wrong, as Kagan herself explains:

Congress’s concern was not to impose new limits on the domestic tort exception, but instead to expand jurisdiction to cover a narrow class of claims based on conduct abroad. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 702, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 3, 5 (1994) (explaining that the bill would “expand” jurisdiction to include claims by an American who is grievously mistreated abroad by a foreign government”).

This was necessary because the domestic tort exception only applies to injuries that occur on U.S. territory. Specifically, the domestic exception allows suit when:

1605(a)(5) – money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state.

In the wake of the Iranian hostage taking in Tehran, Congress wanted designated terror-supporting states to be liable for harms that they inflict on Americans even on their own territory, but this in no way was supposed to limit suit over harms that occur within the United States, such as the 9/11 murders.

Confronted with this obviously wrong ruling by the Second Circuit, Kagan again tries to cobble together an alternative grounds for granting Saudi immunity. To fullfill this improbable command from above, she decides to flat-out lie about precedent, big bald astounding lies.

Torturing “tortious”

Notice that the language of the domestic tort exception is perfectly clear that what has to occur inside the United States is the personal injury or death, not the decision that leads to the personal injury or death. Suppose that the home office of a state owned shipping company decides to scrimp on safety equipment for its cargo vessels, leading to loss of American lives when cargo is offloaded in an American port. This is exactly the kind of thing that FSIA was intended to cover, but Kagan pretends otherwise, arguing that not only the tort (the harm), but also the “tortious act or omission” that creates the harm, have to take place inside the United States.

In many cases there is no separation between the harm and the act that creates it. They both occupy the same time and place. Neither does the language of torts typically distinguish between the tort and the tortious act. Instead, the tortious act is seen as being realized when the tort (the harm) actually occurs. Kagan’s ploy is to try to make a distinction between the tort and the “tortious act” that leads to it, and she is able to come up with some out-of-context references to make it sound as if precedent demands that both the harm and the decision-making that leads to the harm have to occur here in America.

She claims, for instance, that:

In Amerada Hess, the Court considered and rejected the argument that domestic effects of a foreign state’s conduct abroad satisfy the exception. 488 U.S. at 441.

Applied to the current case, she is clearly suggesting that the “domestic effect” corresponds to the 9/11 attacks, and that the “conduct abroad” corresponds to the statutorily required “tortuous act or omission” that in both cases took place outside of U.S. territory. A look at the actual Supreme Court ruling, however, shows this to be a gross misrepresentation of Ameranda Hess.

Looking up Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. and turning to p. 441 we find what the case was actually about:

In this case, the injury to respondents’ ship occurred on the high seas some 5,000 miles off the nearest shores of the United States. Despite these telling facts, respondents nonetheless claim that the tortious attack on the Hercules occurred “in the United States.”

In other words, it was the harm itself that in this case did not occur within U.S. territory. Contrary to Kagan’s representation, the Court was NOT making a distinction between the harm and decision that led to it and claiming that both had to occur within the United States.

This kind of blatant misrepresentation of precedent is lawlessness! Is this how the Obama administration treats precedent? As fodder for utterly dishonest word games? YES.

To preserve its own reputation, SCOTUS will have to hear the families’ case

The Supreme Court asked the Obama administration to submit this brief. It cannot be ignored. If SCOTUS accepts guidance from this contemptuous document, then it is implicated in the Obama administration’s contempt for the law.

If the sheer perversity of Kagan’s filing does force the Court to hear the families’ case, that would be a great outcome, but the downside risk is equally amplified. If the Court DOES accept Kagan’s guidance, it is a black black day for America.

Meretricious cites and arguments dominate every paragraph of Kagan’s brief, except in two place: where she shoots down the Second Circuit’s patently errant grounds for dismissal. It almost seems like she started with a brief in support of the families’ suit before getting the order from Obama to side with the Saudis. Apparently she decided that it was fruitless to try to support the Second Circuit’s reasoning, so she let the demolition of the Second Circuit’s ruling stand, then supplied her own just as bad case for Saudi immunity.

However it came about, Kagan’s destruction of the Second Circuit ruling is so competent, and her substitute arguments for immunity so incompetent, that the whole almost seems designed to force a Supreme Court hearing. Could she have intentionally sabotaged her own brief? Doubtful, given that the Obama DOJ just overruled its own career lawyers in order to drop an already won case against three New Black Panthers who were caught on tape using weapons to intimidate voters. Apparently the Obama administration just really is this stupid and malicious.

In any case, it seems unlikely that Kagan’s shenanigans will get past the justices. Antonin Scalia is unlikely to forget the FISA case opinion he wrote in 1992, addressing the very question of harms resulting in the United States from decisions made by foreign entities in their home countries. His conclusion? In a breach of contract case where the only tie to the United States was the option of receiving payment in dollars in New York City, the Court denied immunity. Only the harm itself had to take place on U.S. territory, not the decisions that led to the harm, and the opinion was unanimous.

Obama’s imperial presidency: he does not want to be bound by the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and says so

The family group states directly that:

The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.

Indeed, the entire first section of Kagan’s brief is replete with claims that exceptions to sovereign immunity should be determined politically.

That is the way it used to be, before Congress passed the FSIA act specifically in order to take these determinations out of the political realm. The United States only started granting any exceptions to the legal tradition of sovereign immunity in the 1950’s, after some nation-states started getting heavily involved in commerce. If state enterprises could not be held liable in U.S. courts, they would have a competitive advantage over private industry. Not smart policy during the cold-war contest between capitalism and communism.

Exceptions were at first made on a case by case basis by the executive, but such arbitrariness does not suit the needs of commerce, so Congress made an explicit decision to take this power away from the executive. Even so, Kagan’s brief hints over and over (p. 4-10) that executive prerogative should still hold sway, but without ever making an explicit case that FSIA intrudes on the inherent powers of the presidency, and without ever stating what the president would want to do with those powers in the present case if the court were to recognize them as pre-eminent.

The reason Kagan doesn’t make these things explicit is because they are damning. Obama knows that the Saudi’s are liable under U.S. law, but for his own political reasons he does not want them to be held liable, but neither does want the nation to understand that he considers currying favor with the people who attacked us on 9/11 to be more important than justice for his own murdered countrymen.

The president does indeed have some inherent power here, just as President Bush had inherent power to wiretap conversations with al Qaeda operatives both at home and abroad, regardless of what Congress put in the FISA wiretapping law. Bush did abide by FISA, but he didn’t have to.*

Obama is going further. He does not want to abide by FSIA, but is unwilling to make the case that the particular exemption from FSIA that he is asking for is a legitimate exercise of his inherent powers, or even assert what he would do with that power. He just wants the courts to do his dirty work for him, asking them to grant immunity to the Saudis based on bogus claims about FSIA law and precedent.

Conservative justices might be tempted to recognize the president’s inherent powers in the area of foreign policy, but they should not let him exercise this power on false pretenses. If he wants to claim that he has the inherent power to grant immunity to the Saudis and that this is how he wants to exercise that power, he can do it publicly, but he should not be allowed to overrule Congress on the pretense that he is doing the will of Congress.

To allow this subterfuge would destroy fundamental FSIA precedents while failing to attain the virtue of the pre-FSIA regime, where the president had to stand or fall by his explicitly political decision-making. If Obama wants to invoke the inherent power of the presidency here, he at the very least has to be willing to admit it.

* FISA court precedent on inherent powers

The powers of Congress to regulate in an area where the president has his own inherent authority was addressed by the FISA court in September 2002:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

The contrast to the present case is instructive. Bush’s Solicitor General Ted Olson did not hide the fact that President Bush wanted the court to recognize his inherent authority to conduct signals intelligence. With that power duly recognized, Bush still went the last mile to conform to the law as enacted by Congress. That is what it means to “uphold our fundamental principles and values,” while Obama, who keeps accusing President Bush of failing to uphold our values, engages in legal subterfuge, showing as much contempt for the law as for our 9/11 families.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech
A Defending Crusader
A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever
A Liberal’s Worst Nightmare
ACT Golden Gate
Al Salibiyyah
Alamo City Pundit
All American Blogger
Almost Midnight in the West
American Commentaries
And Here I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
And Rightly So
Animal Farm
Anne Arundel Maryland Politics
apocryphal EVIDENCE !
ARRA News Service
Atlas Shrugs
Auntie Coosa Campfire Journal
Bare Naked Islam
Battle Dress U
Because I’m Right
Best Destiny
Big Dog’s Weblog
Big Sibling
Blackboot Jacks
blogito, ergo, sum
Bob McCarty Writes
Boston Maggie
Cao2’s Weblog
Cao’s Blog
Chaotic Synaptic Activity
Chester Street
Chicago Ray
Christmas Ghost
Classic Liberal
Clay Ritter
Clay’s Rants and Musings
Cocked and Loaded
Colonel Robert Neville Always Dresses for Dinner
Common Sense Junction
Concrete Bob
Covertress
Creeping Sharia
DC Protest Warrior
Democrat = Socialist
Dr. Bulldog and Ronin
Error Theory
EW1’s Intercept Log
Faultline USA
Flanders Fields
Flopping Aces
Founding Fathers of the Vast Right Wing
Four Pointer
Francase Place
Freedom Ain’t Free
Freedom Warrior
Freedom’s Enemies
Fried Green Onions
From My Position On the Way!
Ft. Hard Knox
Garbanzo Toons
General Rachel’s Weblog
GM’s Place
Gunservatively
Haid Dasalami
Hard to Swallow
Heretics Crusade
Holger Awakens
Hollywood Conservative
Hoosier Army Mom
I Own The World
Infidels’ Paradise
Ironic Surrealism v3.0
Ivy League Conservatives
I’m Having A Thought Here
Jack Lewis
Jihad Press
Jim-Rose – the Libertarian Popinjay
Judge Right
Just Barking Mad
kae’s bloodnut blog
Kender’s Musings
Lemur King’s Folly
LGF 2.0: Little Blogmocracy
Liberal Guy
Maggie’s Notebook
MELAMPUS’S MENAGERIE!!!!
Miss Beth’s Victory Dance
Monkey in the Middle
Muslims Against Sharia
My Own Thoughts
Neoconstant
Nice Deb
No Apology
No Compromises When It Comes To Being Right!
Noli insipientium iniurias pati
Not A Sheep
Old Soldier
Papa Mike’s blog
Part-Time Pundit
Political Islam
Principally Political
Protest The Church
Protest The Left
Publius’ Forum
Race, Politics, and Religion in the USA
Rayra.net
Redesigned Flight 93 memorial still an Islamo-fascist shrine
Republican Attack Machine
Right on the Right
Right Truth
Ron’s Musings
Rosemary’s Thoughts
Sad Old Goth
Sarah Palin in Español
Seattle Express
Sharia Finance Watch
Sheepdog Barking
Shot in the Dark
Smooth Stone
Space 4 Commerce by Brian Dunbar
Stix Blog
Stop the ACLU
Talk Wisdom
Teen Pundit
The Allemon Cartoon Blog
the Avid Editor
The Conservative Guy
The Gadfly
The Great Lie of Islam
The Grid
The Hinge of Fate
The Interface of Data and Life
The Loyal Eagles
The Midnight Sun
The Mountain
The Paradigm Shift
The Political Octagon
The Renaissance Biologist
The Sanity Sentinel
The Sisyphus Files
The Strata-Sphere
the Truth of Islam
The View From the Turret
The Wide Awakes
Thunder Run
Tizona’s Weblog
Totus
Tough Girl 101
Traction Control
United Conservatives
Usurper Exposed
War of 2 Worlds
We Have Some Planes
Yes, but can I dance to it?

 

What The North Korean Missile Launch Means

Besides North Korean thumbing their nose at America and at the UN do you really know what the impact of a N. Korean missile test means?

• Iran missile experts in North Korea ‘to help with rocket launch’
• A Missile Shot for Iran

It amazes me that the International Press sees the problem with Obama’s spinelessness yet the American media still fawns over the empty suit and praises him.

It is said the tested missile traveled about 1200 miles before splashing into the ocean. It is no coincidence that this is about the same distance from Iran to Israel!

Obama’s response is let’s give up all our nuclear weapons. He is now demonstrating the mediocre intelligence that he had at Columbia University instead of the alleged high intelligence he supposedly demonstrated at Harvard.

Since the days of the caveman, homo sapiens have had violent tendencies. There will always be mad power hungry leaders who will try to expand their influence with any means possible. Deterrents will always be necessary yet Obama would have us disarm. His administration is stopping research and development on new programs and abandoning those in the pipeline. He is putting America and Americans at risk. He is trying to disarm the citizens. The danger is clear and present yet some Americans choose to ignore the facts.

The UN is already waffling on what do about North Korea just like they have over Iran since 1979 and we now have a President who genuflects to the Saudi King and kowtows to the madman who rules North Korea.

Does America have the spine to stand up to anyone?

---

 

 

 

Ghost Ranger, Tex’s first novel, is now available on Lulu and Amazon.

 

 

 

---

And The POT(US) Calls The Kettle Black

President Obama said the US had “failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world”.

I was shocked to find out that Anti-Americanism is running rampant. Perhaps I should change my source of news to Pravada, TASS, or the DailyKOS like Obama. Or perhaps he is reading one of the papers in Arabic that the Wahhabi’s publish.

What happened for those who missed it is that the liberal press demonized a sitting President and the rest of the world joined in because they were quaking in their boots over radical fanatics and the fear that they too maybe attacked or have their precious oil cut off. Twice Russia has used petro-power to make former satellite States toe the Party line and cut off gas to Europe so they couldn’t complain. Then the American voters elected an empty suit puppet.

Obama apologizing to the World for America. I guess things like WW1, WW2, being the backbone of NATO while financially waiving all war debts of Europe, the charity of America and every good thing we do and have done mean little to a man who doesn’t know how many States there are. Admittedly he did mention that to just blame America for the world’s ills was foolish.

“But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognising the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad.

A “Constitutional Scholar” who has no idea what that precious document says but wants to rewrite it. He wants to model a new constitution on European Socialism and he says it must contain “redistribution of wealth”.

Obama…the man who thinks he can hide his heritage, his college records, his birth certificate and his ties to Communists, radical Islam, Black Liberation, and every other left wing organization. The man that fails to understand the meaning of deterrent. The man who wants to disarm not only the people of the United States but the Armed Forces. The man who thinks that the law doesn’t apply to him. The man who has proven that the American voters are stupid.

Throughout the election campaign Obama projected nothing but arrogance while thinking Americans clung to their “Religion and their guns”. Even the Pope noticed BHO’s arrogance and the Vatican voiced their objections.

This is a man who loads his Cabinet up with tax cheats and scofflaws; a man who lies about anything and everything. He is now trying to throw Israel under the bus. He is a spineless leader who is advocating that this Country be subjugated to the New World Order. This is a man who wants to make nice, nice with nations that support and fund terrorism. This is a man who thinks that just because he was elected POTUS the entire world must not question him about anything. They should just follow him. This is a man who is keeping enemy lists. This is a man who doesn’t want banks paying back TARP monies because then he wouldn’t have control.

ALL
^POWER TO THE PEOPLE POTUS!

I don’t blame the First Lady of France for not wanting to kiss him, that face of his has been kissing derrieres for so long and no telling where it had been lately.

---

 

 

 

Ghost Ranger, Tex’s first novel, is now available on Lulu and Amazon.

 

 

 

---

How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation

I humbly but emphatically recommend this insider account of just how the Alinsky and Cloward-Piven curses upon society have yielded bitter fruit for America — in the welfare crisis, the current finance crisis, and in the coming federal spending catastrophe. It may seem a long story for a blog, but it is of imperative value, for understanding how our proud nation is about to be brought to its knees.

by Sam Sewell, The Steady Drip blog

Note: It will quickly be obvious to the reader why details have been obscured, omitted or fictionalized in this narrative of events that began nearly forty years ago.

Se non è vero, è ben trovato.

Even small children know how to get what they want by creating a crisis. Witness any “temper tantrum.” My wife and I teach parenting skills. One of our sayings which we recommend to parents when dealing with a child’s “crisis strategy” is: “Poor planning on your part does not constitute a crisis on my part. No, you can’t borrow $20 because you are broke, even if you did promise to take Betty Lou to the movies tonight.” The child did not get their way. A similar “No!” needs to be said to adult politicians who have created a crisis to get their way.

Another example; Paris taxi-drivers, in protest against a police demand that they take physical examinations, threatened to obey every traffic law to the letter—which would, they vowed, produce the greatest traffic jam Paris had ever seen. The Taxi drivers got their way.

Creating a crisis to get one’s way is a strategy as old as Moses calling down plagues upon Pharaoh and saying “Let my people go.”

To better understand the fascinating story below we need some background information. In the late 1960s a pair of college professors who thought they were original thinkers came up with something called the Cloward-Piven Strategy (CPS), a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. “Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited Chicago radical community organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration.”Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book, Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.” Notice that Alinski might have heard about the Paris taxi drivers, and then gave their strategy a radical left twist.

Saul had a huge influence on radical left people of the day. Saul was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior honors thesis at Wellesley College. “In early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley not release the thesis to anyone. Wellesley complied, instituting a new rule that closed access to the thesis of any sitting U.S. president or first lady, a rule that in practice applied only to Rodham.” Alinski also strongly influenced a young Chicago “community organizer” named Barack Obama.

An old friend from my spooky past recently reminded me of his adventures back in the early 1970s. If you did not know that clergy are used for Intelligence and undercover missions you haven’t been paying attention to history. Believe it or not these decades old events, told by The Rev. Big Goon, help explain our present political and economic crisis.

Dear Aristotle the Hun

I’ve been doing some thinking that I thought I would share with you. My memories of the work I was doing when we knew each other at UMKC have really helped inform me about our present situation with our new President and the financial crisis.

I have visited “The Steady Drip” many times and I know your reputation for accurate research so you will find citations included to back up what I have to say. I noticed that on your blog you have expressed suspicions about the onset of the financial meltdown just in time to help Obama get elected. You also expressed suspicions about the most liberal President and Congress in the history of the nation conveniently coming into office at a time when the economy was so wounded that it might be possible to establish a socialist economic system. Just how “lucky” can these liberals get?

What I have to say may help you understand the dynamics but I doubt it will do away with your suspicions. Being suspicious is a job requirement for both Clergy and Intelligence work. I also know you are well connected to the Internet community and influential bloggers so you have my permission to use my comments as you see fit.

Here is my story: I arrived in Kansas City, Mo. in May of 1970, shortly after the first bombing done by a group of left wing radicals. I worked for the Western Diocese of the Episcopal Church which sponsored the St. Thomas Student Center at UMKC. Naming an Episcopal student center after “Doubting Thomas” was glaringly appropriate for a college campus in the early 70s No, your readers can not ask about my real employer. (As the old joke goes; “If I told you I would have to kill you.”)

The summer of 1970 in Kansas City was a really wild ride. In 1970 alone, an estimated 3,000 bombings and 50,000 bomb threats occurred in the United States, and Kansas City was not left out of the chaos. One of my assignments was to look into the activities of a group of radicals who, after they were arrested, became melodramatically known as “the Kansas City Four.” They were really bungling, small time radicals. A legal case from those days survives on the Internet.

It was arranged for the FBI to contact known radicals in the community and ask them questions about me. My “case officer” posed as a state employee, so my monthly meetings with him were open and aroused no suspicion. I was warmly accepted by the radical community, and even spent some time living at a place operated by young radicals called the Ecstatic Umbrella, until I found more permanent housing.

The Second Presbyterian Church at 52nd and Oak owned an apartment building, and one of the Kansas City bombers lived in that building. As well as doing my job as a campus chaplain, I became a youth pastor at Second Presbyterian, and took an apartment in their building. I must admit that I was very uncomfortable living in the same building with a LSD using, grass smoking, alcoholic who I knew was making bombs in his bedroom.

By the time I entered UMKC in the fall as a graduate student, my cover was already firmly established. To put a cinch knot on my cover story, I also became the Chaplain of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. I still experience a gratifying chuckle over how perfectly, easily, and quickly I had infiltrated the radical community in KC. It wasn’t that hard. Almost everyone was doing acid and grass. Every weekend there was a wild carnival of hippy, stoner, radical, love-child young people in Volker Park. Contact was easy. I won my status in the counter-culture community with nothing more than a prank. I purchased a case of dish washing liquid, and in the dark of night I poured the entire case into the Plaza fountain. My accomplices were very impressed with my boldness and it made the front page of the Kansas City Star.

I had a different name then. I was called Rev. Big Goon. It should be noted here that I physically resemble a great silver back gorilla, although my knuckles don’t drag on the ground. A local Kansas City undercover officer who had no idea who I was gave me that name. I saw it in a police report on activity in Volker Park. Years later I found out that my cover was so believable that I was on a list of dangerous radicals that Kansas City Chief of Police Clarence Kelly took with him when he was appointed as the Director of the FBI in 1973.

For me, the investigation of the Kansas City Four quickly fizzled. Other investigators uncovered the activities of the suspects, provided the evidence and they were arraigned in July of 1971. My last contact with that case was to arrange to be appointed as a Chaplain for the Jackson County jail, where I interviewed one of the suspects who was being held there as a federal prisoner awaiting trial.

The case was hugely overblown, in the way law enforcement and prosecutors will exaggerate to make their work seem to be more important and to advance their careers. One of them was more of a nut case than a criminal and he might have been the most dangerous because of his hatred and violence against “the system”. He is still alive, on the streets, and probably still dangerous.

I struck up a romantic involvement with a social worker from Chicago who was working for Family and Children’s Services, a state of Missouri agency. Her friends and contacts were a gold mine for my new mission. That is how I became involved with the Welfare Rights Organization (WRO) of Kansas City where I saw, first hand, how community activists applied the CPS theory in real life.

CPS and Saul Alinski were all the rage among left wing professors, activists, students and social workers. My social worker girl friend from Chicago knew all about Saul Alinski. CPS was a new idea seen as dazzlingly brilliant by social workers and other liberals. She introduced me to a radical community activist, also from Chicago, who was organizing poor black people who lived in Wayne Minor public housing. His name was Mark. Mark was also a clergyman. Mark introduced me to a powerfully charismatic black woman who was Executive Director of the Kansas City Welfare Rights Organization. There were several young white men and women who worked for the WRO. Mark taught me the ropes about how we were going to train these young “community organizers” and welfare recipients, so that they became effective foot soldiers for the left wing.

The socialist professors who devised the CPS: “The authors (Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven) noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.” Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.”

Mark and I were part of that “cadres of aggressive organizers.” We would go through the vast, dilapidated cavern of poverty called Wayne Minor with a list of all the entitlements offered by the State of Missouri. Each person we talked to became instantly “motivated” to apply for more welfare benefits. Before long, people began seeking us out at the WRO office. Outreach to the community wasn’t necessary. The community flocked to us. We would show them how to fill out application forms, and many times we filled out the forms for them.

When we had a large number of people ready to apply for new benefits, or additional benefits they had not known they were entitled to before our training, we arranged for busses to take our new recruits to the state office building. We had spent many hours training them as to what to do and what not to do. We told them it was ok to be loud, obnoxious, aggressive, but to never be physical or damage property. In other words, do everything you can do to be uncivil, but don’t get yourself arrested. We planned the event for a Friday and, of course, we called the media. Our “trainees” staged a class “A” media event for the television cameras. Our first “action” was a rousing success.

When we got to the WRO office Monday morning there were hundreds of people waiting to be “trained” in how to collect welfare. The part of the welfare system to feel the most heat right away was what the state called “intake.” Intake social workers were overwhelmed, intimidated, and routinely approved questionable benefits because of the stress they were experiencing. The state began a panicky search for new intake workers, and anybody with a BA degree was practically dragged off the street. Larger office space was arranged for the intake department. Mark and I were heroes to the radical community.

Since this was happening at the same time in St. Louis and other cities, Kitt Bond, then Auditor of State of Missouri, and soon-to-become Governor, asked for help. I was assigned to brief his representative about what was behind the welfare revolt.

As it turns out Mark, the community organizer from Chicago, and my social worker girl friend from Chicago were also friends with the Kansas City Four. Soon my primary mission was accomplished, and I went on to other projects, but I never forgot the effectiveness of creating a crisis to bring about radical change. I concluded that the WRO and the Alinski/CPS inspired radical community organizers were more of a danger to the nation than the Laurel and Hardy bombers.

I stopped doing Intelligence work, the years went by, and I began my career as a full time Pastor. Not long after I “went straight” I again ran into the CPS and Saul Alinsky. During the administration of George H. W. Bush I began hearing reports of loud, obnoxious, aggressive, poor people taking over bank lobbies and demanding that they be given mortgages. All this was happening because community activists, many from Chicago, were doing the same thing to banks that had been done to the state welfare offices back in Kansas City. The role of WRO was now filled by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).

Stan Kurtz of National Review comments on ACORN’S tactics. “While ACORN holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. ACORN prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, (Sol Stern ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities.” local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical ACORN’s positions really are.” ACORN’s new goals are municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating “predatory lending.” Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, ACORN’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. ACORN’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, ACORN uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.”

Obama’s role as a radical community organizer and ACORN “leadership trainer” is well established. Kurtz continues: “ACORN’s tactics are famously “in your face.” Just think of Code Pink’s well-known operations (i.e. threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you’ll get the idea. ACORN protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and ACORN has burst into a closed city council meeting there. ACORN protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors against the mayor’s home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports ACORN said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.”

It wouldn’t take a degree in economics to see what was going to happen. This time the Alinski/CPS pressure wasn’t aimed at the state of Missouri and Kitt Bond. By 1999 Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers. At the same time, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Everybody knows how the problem escalated from there

Do you still have doubts about your suspicions that the financial crisis happened just in time to help Obama get elected? Do you still have doubts about your suspicions that there is something fishy about the financial crisis and the way Congress passed the trillion dollar “Reward Liberal Causes and Constituents Bill” without anyone actually reading it, because we had a “crisis”? See I told you that I wouldn’t be able to help your suspicious nature. J

The Rev. Big Goon

To emphasize Rev. Big Goon’s comments here is an absolutely brilliant piece by Jim Simpson that details the connection of Barack Obama to those who practice the Cloward-Piven strategy.
“Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis”

After reading Jim Simpson’s article you will more fully understand how CPS is connected to Barack Obama, and why Obama keeps using the word “crisis” in every speech he gives. I don’t know how to escape the conclusion that manufactured crisis is what clobbered the economy. Manufactured crisis is what made Obama President, and manufactured crisis is what drives his administration and his policies. There is a web site entitled, “Things I know are true but can’t prove”. Maybe I should send them an email.

Here is a part of the puzzle I think others have missed.

If an enemy of America were to pair the Cloward-Piven strategy to the principles of the new science of networks, it would be possible to target a hub in a system, create a crisis, and by causing that hub to fail, create a domino effect in other hubs and the rest of the system. See here:
A news release from UMass Amherst
and
Doug Simpson’s weblog of research on the collision of law, networks and disruptive technologies
And a link to the most popular book on the subject Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age by Duncan Watts

“Columbia Professor Duncan J. Watts builds on the work of mathematicians, physicists, biologists, sociologists, economists and others to advance the new science of networks. “Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age ” brings a sociologist’s perspective to a field relevant to those dealing with complex systems and their robustness and fragility under stress. The science of networks has significance for those wrestling with current issues of law and public policy in a wide spectrum of applications including electric power grids, insurance markets and anti-terror measures.In 1999, Barabasi and Albert published a ground breaking paper “Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks.” Science, 286, 509-512. (1999). This paper showed that certain connections in real world networks don’t have a normal (”bell curve”) distribution but rather follow a power law distribution. This means that there is an increased likelihood of extreme events in such “scale free” networks. As a result, in scale-free networks, as networks evolve, a few nodes will be “hubs” with an extraordinary number of connections. Barabasi and Albert also found that the evolution of these hubs depended on the combination of network growth and “preferential attachment” – the tendency for new nodes to connect to those already well connected (the “rich get richer” effect.)”

The major reason other political commentators have not addressed the issue of network science is that only mathematicians and scientists understand it. My feeble attempt at a “plain speak” translation is that all networks tend to form hubs that are connected to thousands of other networks, and more importantly, to other hubs. These hubs are vulnerable to a “created crisis” and when that happens the entire web collapses, be it the World Wide Web or the web of the U.S. economy.

National security experts are well aware of the vulnerability of network hubs and publish Network Vulnerability and Risk Assessment reports. This one is researched and published by DTIC Provider of DoD Technical Information to Support The Defense Community. One of the points to note is that: “Threats that originate inside the network tend to have the ability to exploit vulnerabilities in a serial form. This allows the attacker to traverse or “leap-frog” across the network to an advantageous position”. The most likely scenario would expect the attack to come from inside the network when we are looking at the financial network. I have read this risk assessment and it is too general to connect dots as to how a financial “crisis” might be timed and executed, but it is very clear that it can happen.

We know how leftist activists created a crisis and turned the mortgage lending business into a “mortgage welfare entitlement” lending policy. We know that the hub we know as “mortgage banking” failed, bringing down the rest of the economy with it. What we don’t know is how the failure was timed.

My guess is that the science of networks was used to tilt the election in Obama’s favor and damage the economy to such an extent that reshaping it along a socialist paradigm became possible.

One of my hopes in writing this article is to encourage real network scientists to take a look at my hypothesis. One friend who is a scientist at Amherst says I am on the right track, but that isn’t enough to make a definitive statement.

Remember all that talk about how savvy the Obama campaign was about using the Internet? Remember all those Internet CEO’s who were on the Obama team? Remember that George Soros, “the man who broke the Bank of England”, the king of creating market and currency crisis, was on Obama’s team? Can you really imagine a likely scenario where these people do not know about network science and how to use a created crisis to get what they want?

We know for sure that a crisis was deliberately created with malice aforethought by enemies of our country and liberal politicians. They overtly said they would do it and they did. Many of these created events have damaged our nation since 1970. The culprits aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they did it. Decent Americans have trouble believing that people could deliberately do something so evil. That is how deliberately evil people pull the wool over the eyes of decent people.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. No black helicopters or deep throats. It isn’t hidden and it isn’t secret. It is easily visible for those who have eyes to see. Those radical socialists who used deliberately created crisis tactics were successful beyond their expectations. I am reminded of Osama Ben Laden’s pleasant surprise when he was informed about how successful the 9/11 attack had been. I imagine Obama shares Osama’s elation over his unlikely success.

Aristotle the Hun, the Reverend Big Goon, and Good Shepherd Sam

Napolitano: ‘Fair, Just and Proper’ Isn’t the same as ‘Constitutional’

Judge Andrew Napolitano explains that the Constitution clearly states that only “states” shall send representatives to the Congress, and asks why the Democrats are allowing the non-voting delegate from the District of Columbia have a full vote. Click here or on the image below to watch the video.

Hat-Tip: Free Republic, and nauran.

 

Senate Serving America Pork and Redistributed Beans Today

By Faultline USA

This Pic from the LA Times shows

Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, from left, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, and Republican Sens. Arlen Specter and Susan Collins arrive to talk to reporters about a deal being arranged on the economic stimulus bill. The compromise, negotiated behind the scenes, would slice some $110 billion from the bill, which had grown to $930 billion as amended on the Senate floor.

(Brendan Smialowski, Getty Images)

According to this morning’s Chicago Tribune, a deal was hammered out Friday that will bring about the passage of this dreadful stimulus package, and Republicans may delay the vote until early next week, “but there was little doubt about the outcome.”

Senators said the legislation, which is a cornerstone of Obama’s efforts to revive the economy, would carry a price tag of about $820 billion under the compromise deal, though the final figure was unclear. The bill is expected to cost about the same as the $819 billion approved by the House and far lower than the bill as amended on the Senate floor, which had grown to more than $930 billion.

The dirty so-called “Stimulus” deal is almost done with these turncoat Republican Senators we have to thank:

Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

Three GOP moderates — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — quickly declared their support for the compromise. But two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and George Voinovich of Ohio — said they would oppose it.

CBS Poll: Support For Stimulus Falls

According to a new CBS Poll nearly half of America is against the stimulus package because they do not believe it will shorten the recession.

(CBS) Slightly more than half the country approves of President Obama’s $800 billion-plus stimulus package, a new CBS News poll finds. But support for the bill has fallen 12 points since January, and nearly half of those surveyed do not believe it will shorten the recession.

Contact your Senators today and tell them you don’t want this pork and redistributed beans package!

The Center for Individual Freedom will send out blast faxes to all of the Senators in your name for a price. Here’s what they say:

Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people DON’T want them to “tinker” with this evil bill or to try to “fix” it. The American people do not want any “compromises” or “amendments” or ANY AMOUNT OF LIPSTICK PUT ON THIS PIG OF A BILL.

The American people want the Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009 DEAD… A STAKE DRIVEN THROUGH ITS EVIL HEART! Tell them – to borrow a phrase from former First Lady Nancy Reagan – they just need to say “NO” and stop this liberal boondoggle!

We don’t need compromises! We don’t need fixes! We don’t need alternative plans that will move America towards SOCIALISM!

Flood the following wavering and compromising Senators TODAY and their staff with your e-mails reminding them that if they vote Yes on this package their constituents will long remember!!!

SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER – REPUBLICAN

DC PHONE:  (202) 224-4254

DC FAX: (202) 228-1229

HARRISBURG PHONE: (717) 782-3951

HARRISBURG FAX: (717) 782-4920

EMAILS TO CONTACT:

Scott_Hoeflich@specter.senate.gov

Maria_Plakoudas@specter.senate.gov

Christopher_Bradish@specter.senate.gov

thomas_dower@specter.senate.gov

seema_singh@specter.senate.gov

corene_ashley@specter.senate.gov

regina_campbell@specter.senate.gov

gayle_mills@specter.senate.gov

SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM – REPUBLICAN

DC PHONE:  (202) 224-5972

DC FAX: (202) 224-3808

COLUMBIA PHONE: (803) 933-0112

COLUMBIA FAX: (803) 933-0957

EMAILS TO CONTACT:

Richard_Perry@lgraham.senate.gov

Lauren_Edwards@lgraham.senate.gov

jen_olson@lgraham.senate.gov

wes_hickman@lgraham.senate.gov

kevin_bishop@lgraham.senate.gov

Matt_Rimkunas@lGraham.senate.gov

Colin_Allen@LGraham.senate.gov

Laura_Bauld@lGraham.senate.gov

Adam_Brake@LGraham.senate.gov

Walt_Kuhn@LGraham.senate.gov

SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS – REPUBLICAN

DC PHONE:  (202) 224-2523

DC FAX: (202) 224-2693

AUGUSTA PHONE: (207) 622-8414

AUGUSTA FAX: (207) 622-5884

EMAILS TO CONTACT:

Steve_Abbott@collins.senate.gov

Holly_Nesbit@collins.senate.gov

SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE – REPUBLICAN

DC PHONE:  (202) 224-5344

DC FAX: (202) 224-1946

BOSTON PHONE: (207) 622-8292

BOSTON FAX: (207) 622-7295

EMAILS TO CONTACT:

John_Richter@snowe.senate.gov

Anna_Levin@snowe.senate.gov

SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL – REPUBLICAN

DC PHONE:  (202) 224-2541

DC FAX: (202) 224-2499

LOUISVILLE PHONE: (502) 582-6304

LOUISVILLE FAX: (502) 582-5326

EMAILS TO CONTACT:

Fred_Karem@mcconnell.senate.gov

Adam_Howard@mcconnell.senate.gov

Hannah_Benton@mcconnell.senate.gov

robert_steurer@mcconnell.senate.gov

julie_adams@mcconnell.senate.gov

scott_raab@mcconnell.senate.gov

allison_thompson@mcconnell.senate.gov

Reb_Brownell@mcconnell.senate.gov

leann_crosby@mcconnell.senate.gov

Moon_Sulfab@mcconnell.senate

SENATOR JOSEPH LIEBERMAN – INDEPENDENT

DC PHONE:  (202) 224-4041

DC FAX: (202) 224-9750

HARTFORD PHONE: (860) 549-8463

SAN FRANCISCO FAX: (860) 317-2242

EMAILS TO CONTACT:

vance_serchuk@lieberman.senate.gov

clarine_nardi_riddle@lieberman.senate.gov

frank_rowe@lieberman.senate.gov

PC Campus: Academia’s Top 10 Abuses of 2008

Banned conservative speakers, stolen votes, assaults on religious liberty, gay English classes, and forbidden Thanksgiving & Christmas celebrations

Political correctness ran amuck in our nation’s school system this past year, and Young America’s Foundation has once again compiled our “best of the worst” academic abuses for 2008. From “free speech zones” to transgendered speakers at military academies, the following list may make you both laugh and cry in the same breath. That probably isn’t too surprising, however, since we are talking about academia after all…

1. The free speech “zone.” A student at Yuba College in California was sent an ultimatum by the school’s president: discontinue handing out gospel booklets or face disciplinary action and possibly expulsion. That’s right—gospel booklets. Ryan Dozier, the 20-year-old student, had the audacity to distribute Christian literature without a school permit, which restricts free speech to an hour each Tuesday and Thursday. Yuba College even directs students to where on campus they are allowed to exhibit free speech. In this case, it’s the school theater. Campus police threatened to arrest Ryan if he didn’t comply with the “free speech zone,” oblivious to the fact that students don’t need permission to exercise the First Amendment’s free speech and religious clauses.

2. Transgendered activists in, pro-life speakers out. Liberal administrators at the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic institution in Minnesota, censored the appearance of prominent pro-life speaker Star Parker because campus officials felt “uncomfortable” and “disturbed” by previous conservative speakers at the school. The University’s mission statement claims it values “the pursuit of truth,” “diversity,” and “meaningful dialogue.” Except, not really—or better yet, as long as the said “pursuit” doesn’t offend leftist predilections. Meanwhile, within the past year, the same school hosted Al Franken, the bombastic liberal comedian, and Debra Davis, a transgendered activist who believes God is a black lesbian. Realizing they had a public relations disaster on their hands, the head honchos at St. Thomas eventually reversed the ban on Star Parker.

3. A new meaning of Duty, Honor, Country. Cadets at West Point, the nation’s foremost military academy, must maintain disciplined, selfless behavior—a precursor to the standards graduates are expected to uphold and reinforce once commissioned as military officers. So how does leftist instructor Judy Rosenstein of the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership encourage cadets to appreciate the military’s code of conduct? By hosting a transgendered speaker in class, of course! “Allyson” Robinson, a West Point grad him-, er, herself, switched genders after leaving the Army. Upon returning to West Point as a guest speaker, “Mrs.” Robinson found it “worrisome” that the student composition seemed more socially conservative than when “she” was a student. Perhaps West Point’s leadership should confine speaker invitations to those whose behavior, if emulated, would not get cadets booted from the academy, much less the Army.

4. 2008’s stolen election? Columbia University recently polled students on whether or not they would support the return of the Navy’s Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) to campus after a 40-year absence. Columbia claimed the referendum lost by 39 votes. However, the University inexplicably closed the online poll at different times for different students and discarded more than 1,900 votes out of the 4,905 cast. To boot, the university showcased its “anti-fraud” measures, revealing they caught one person who purportedly voted 276 times! So much for secure, front-end identification control. In the end, 1,502 “valid” NAYs trumped the 1,463 AYEs. Does anyone else smell some anti-military electioneering rats?

5. When English class turns gay. Heads turned when Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois required this book as part of an Advanced Placement English literature course: Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes. The book is laced with graphic sexual content, much of it too inflammatory to print here—although there are “milder” exchanges fit to report, such as one character pleading with his sexual partner to “infect” and “make [him] bleed.” Supporters of Angels in America say the book is useful because it depicts “forgiveness, kindness, and compassion,” as if HIV-positive sodomy is the best way to promote empathy to minors.

6. You can’t pray here! The First Amendment, is it a bestowed right given from above and protected by our government or a meaningless, antiquated concept to be disposed of? If you’re the folks at the College of Alameda in California, you’d pick the latter. How else do you explain their threatening to expel a student who prayed on campus? It all started when a student, Kandy Kyriacou, visited her professor to give her a Christmas gift. But when Kandy saw that her teacher was ill, she offered to pray for her. The professor agreed. That’s when Derek Piazza, another professor, walked in and freaked out that a prayer—gasp, a prayer—was occurring on college premises. “You can’t be doing that in here,” Piazza purportedly barked. Kandy received a retroactive “intent to suspend” letter from the administration, claiming that she was guilty of “disruptive or insulting behavior” and “persistent abuse of” college employees. Further infractions would result in expulsion, the letter read.

7. Hey, that feather cap is racist. For decades, kindergarten classes in the Claremont district of California have celebrated Thanksgiving by dressing up as Pilgrims and Indians and sharing a feast. Harmless, eh? Apparently not. In a letter to her daughter’s elementary school teacher, Michelle Raheja, an English professor at University of California-Riverside, fumed that such activities are “dehumanizing” and serve as a “racist stereotype.” In fact, Ms. Raheja whined that the Thanksgiving costume party is comparable to parading children around as “slaves” and “Jews.” The school district capitulated, and now the toddlers are prohibited from wearing “their hand-made bonnets, headdresses and fringed vests.”

8. Ho, ho, forgetaboutit! Who’s offended by Christmas decorations? All the white liberals who celebrate Kwanza? Must be. Florida Gulf Coast University’s president, Wilson Bradshaw, sent holiday festivities packing because he didn’t know “how best to observe the season in ways that honor and respect all traditions.” Holiday décor wasn’t the only thing to go, under Mr. Bradshaw. The school’s greeting card contest got tossed as well. Cheer up, says, the President—Christmas merriment was replaced with an “ugly sweater competition.” Mr. Bradshaw ultimately had a change of heart, after his embarrassing attempt at censorship became public.

9. Leftist factions compete on who is more multicultural. When eco-fanatics at UC-Berkeley illegally saddled themselves in trees on campus and hurled urine and feces to block the construction of a multi-million dollar athletic facility, probably the last thing they expected was to be called racists. Yet the school’s chancellor, Robert Birgeneau, labeled them just that, saying the environmental radicals were impeding the completion of a new athletic facility designed to attract “minority student athletes.” Puzzled that the chancellor played the race card on them, the tree dwellers argued that “three of the final four” protestors were “Latinos” and the very first hijacker was a “Native American.” One of the Berkeley zealots, who goes by the name “Running Wolf,” said that Mr. Birgenaeau attempted “to pit colored against colored.”

10. Who knew? Universal health care is actually a non partisan issue. Administrators at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul, Minnesota—the nation’s largest Catholic women’s college—unexpectedly blocked young conservatives on campus from hosting Bay Buchanan, a popular conservative commentator and U.S. Treasurer under President Reagan. College officials deemed Ms. Buchanan’s remarks on “Feminism and the 2008 Election” too politically charged, citing concerns about the school’s tax status. Those same “concerns,” mind you, didn’t prohibit the school from sponsoring programs that push for universal healthcare and minimum wage increases or hosting Frank Kroncke, an anti-war radical who is reliving the Vietnam days. But Bay Buchanan? Well, she’s partisan, according to St. Catherine’s administration.

For more information or to schedule an interview, contact Jason Mattera at 800-USA-1776

Editor’s note: Point # 6 occurred in late 2007, but wasn’t reported until 2008, which is why we included it on the list.

Larry King, John McCain, Rasheed Khalidi, and the Barack Obama Shamwow Infomercial

Somebody told me that a baseball game was played last night. I don’t care. Baseball is boring.

That concludes the sports report. Now on to politics.

Barack Obama ran a 30 minute infomercial last night. I would sooner watch a “Sham wow” commercial than one more clip of this nonsense.

This is not about conservatism vs liberalism. It is about substance vs style. I was expecting the equivalent of a fireside chat. Instead, it truly was just an elongated campaign commercial that was ultra light on specifics and ultra heavy on Obama’s love for himself. Our souls are broken, to quote his wife Michelle, and only he can fix them.

Obama can get away with this because he is rolling in money.

I want to make it clear that I have no objection to Obama raising tons of money. I think all politicians should have the opportunity to raise this money. The irony is that it will be John McCain and that horrible campaign finance reform law of McCain-Feingold that has McCain starving for cash at the 11th hour.

I am voting for John McCain, but he has only himself to blame for this. He agreed to spending limits if Obama would as well. Obama said he would. He lied. There is no other way of sugarcoating this.

More importantly, I am almost glad he lied. For one, it will prove that there are absolutely no consequences for being against campaign finance reform. It is inside baseball. The American people don’t care. The media love campaign finance reform because it gives them more power, heaven forbid anybody else have influence. Ordinary people are not bothered by Obama raising tons of cash. As a republican, I support his right to do so.

Another lesson is that republicans need to stop being so obsessed with rules. Liberals break rules, and get away with it. McCain should immediately begin raising money from everywhere. He can apologize after the election, and pay the fine. He decided to be a gentleman and fight with one hand tied behind his back. Obama, as a liberal, is not bound by any rules or ethics. Does anybody think Obama will lose sleep over this? So what if Bill Clinton was sleazy and Bob Dole was honorable? Clinton got to be President. McCain will be honorable and Obama will get to govern. Republicans must never unilaterally surrender any advantages unless they can force the left to obey the rules, or corner them when they break them.

Even Campbell Brown, who is not conservative about anything, is calling out Obama for lying. She should have done this months ago. It is a meaningless gesture to make CNN look fair.

CNN refused to run the infomercial, preferring to run their own Pro-Obama infomercial, or as they call it, campaign coverage.

Barack Obama is simply a phony, but people know this and do not care. He does not even know the difference between “The Jeffersons” and “Sanford and Son.” I do. I am officially revoking Obama’s race. He is no longer black. I am declaring him white, so that guilty white liberals will judge him by the lack of content in the lack of his character, not the color of his skin. Barack Obama is as sincere as John Kerry. He is an effete nose in the air snob.

From now on, Barack Obama is no longer black. Now we can judge him on his lack of accomplishments.

For those who want a black President at any and all costs, Michael Steele is available, and so is Dr. Thomas Sowell.

No, I do not care if Obama knows the difference between Fred Sanford’s wife Elizabeth and George Jefferson’s wife Weezie. What I do care about is the media obsessing over Sarah Palin’s clothing that is not even hers, while ignoring those who hang Sarah Palin dolls by a noose on their lawns. Ideological bigotry by the left must be covered, whether it be ACORN forcing banks to make loans to those that cannot pay them, or comparing John McCain to George Wallace and George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

(Full disclosure: Hitler tried to kill my dad. Dubya is a friend of Jews, and cut my taxes.)

Now as for Obama’s 30 minute replay of the Demagoguic Party Convention, below is some analysis.

He was chatting from a room similar to the Oval Office. Yes, he has already measured the drapes.

I truly thought this would be a substantive speech. I did not expect substance because it was Obama. Far from it, I think he lacks substance. I did expect him to offer substance one time just before the election.

I was genuinely stunned by the lack of value in this production. What truly made me shocked was that it was a replay of his platitudes.

“A rescue plan for the middle class.”

“Low cost loans for small businesses.”

“This does not grow Government. It grows the economy.”

He then mentioned fairness.

“Americans don’t expect Government to solve all their problems. They don’t want a handout.”

This was like 1992 all over again. Endless talk about how he will cut taxes, right before the middle class gets their taxes raised.

Obama also offered a bunch of sob stories. I want to make it clear. I have genuine empathy for people that are struggling. However, empathy is not a plan. A platitude is not a program. Nobody wants to see human suffering. However, Obama’s plans make matters worse.

He showed a tale of an elderly couple worried about health care, and then followed it up by talking about energy independence. It made no sense.

“I will create 5 million new green jobs. Jobs that will never be sent overseas.”

He then lied outright by saying he would allow for clean coal technology and domestic oil production. No he will not.

“Usher in a new era of responsibility.”

This says nothing.

“I will go through the Federal Government line by line and eliminate programs that don’t work.”

This is nothing.

He does not have any “new” ideas. He has tired old ideas that have failed since the 1960s.

Who the heck is the CEO of Google to say that the oil companies are bad? The CEO of Google uses thuggish tactics to make sure that left wing sites get better search results. Remember, Al Gore is one of the bigwigs at Google.

Again,, we can show thousands of videos of ordinary people who have concerns. So what? Many McCain supporters have concerns? We all have worries. To imply in any way that because Barack Obama can smile at people, that he can actually fix problems is ludicrous.

This video was meant to make him come across as a moderate. He kept speaking about personal responsibility.

“Nothing can replace parents who help children with their homework.”

He says things that are impossible to disagree with. Yes, parents should help their children with regards to homework. So what? How is Obama going to help? Is he going to babysit the kids? Perhaps that is what is meant by the Nanny State. The fact is that he will take is marching orders from the NEA. The students will get shortchanged.

“I will ask for higher standards and more accountability.”

He can ask all he wants. The NEA will not allow it.

He is the man without the plan.

His health plan improves technology and lowers costs. He does not say how. We just have to take it on blind faith.

“Life sure is short and you had better seize the moment.”

He uses his mother’s untimely death to justify his running for President. He is running for the same reason the other pols run…ambition.

He reads Harry Potter books to his children and calls them every night. Great, he is a good father. Again, this is meaningless pablum.

The man is a walking platitude.

Joe Biden is from Scranton, Pennsylvania. We get it.

Nobody wants to lose their job. I certainly don’t. Yet to show a few heart wrenching tales and then imply that anything Obama says or does will fix the problems is dishonest.

If I hear “tough diplomacy” one more time, I will be ill. He will use this diplomacy to handle Iran and Russia. They are cracking up with laughter over this. Russia has a veto on the U.N. Security Council.

Obama found one military general who is voting for him. 75% of the military will vote for John McCain.

He “understands the world because of his background.” His background?

“I will listen to you when we disagree.”

Tell that to those pushing the Fairness Doctrine, or those stifling debate with anybody that criticizes him. Oh wait, it is him doing that.

“Unity over division…”

He does not mean it. His entire career has been divisive.

Yes, this guy is a rock star. He is a fabulous politician. Yet that is all he is. He is a celebrity. He is Barack Hannah Montana Obama. He is the American Idol, nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I honestly expected him to offer something tangible.

There is no there there.

I then tuned in to see John McCain on Larry King. I was expecting zero substance whatsoever. Larry King has never asked a tough question in his life. He warmly shook the hand of terrorist Armageddonijad of Iran, and asked him about his family.

If Larry asked McCain tough questions, then we would finally have the best evidence of media bias in existence. If the interview was a softball interview, it would be about time that McCain received such treatment. Ellen Degeneres asked Obama to dance, and the imbeciles at “The View” fawned over Obama and lacerated McCain. So either way McCain going on Larry King was a win.

This was a substantive discussion. Not because of Larry King mind you, but because of John McCain.

He understands that the way to reduce the deficit is with growth. Growing the economy is the key. Anybody who took Economics 101 understands this. That exempts Obama. Taxing businesses until they leave is not the answer.

When Larry brought up Obama’s “steady hand of leadership,” McCain stated he “never saw him display it.”

McCain was self effacing about a debate he fared poorly in that took place in South Carolina in 2000. He has a self deprecating nature that Obama does not possess.

Larry King discussed actual policy with McCain. Obama will not do this because he does not like answering questions.

After the McCain interview, a panel of “experts” was asked to comment on Obama’s infomercial. Gunga Dan Rather, a disgraced former partisan hack masquerading as a journalist, was on the panel. Naturally, he found the infomercial magnificent. The Los Angeles Times could not be reached for a comment because they were busy suppressing evidence in the Rasheed Khalidi matter.

I will not spend much time on this story because Obama will simply lie, and the people who support him will believe him or not care. In short, Rasheed Khalidi is an anti-Semite with terrorist ties. He is a Professor at Columbia, which in itself should be evidence enough. Then again, for those who do not believe Columbia is a campus of hatred, the key issue is that the LA Times has a videotape of Obama and Khalidi socializing together. Bill Ayers may be on the tape as well. It is from 2003. The LA Times claims it cannot release the tape due to journalistic ethics, as if that has existed at that paper this century.

If the tape exonerated Obama, it would be all over the internet. John McCain and Sarah Palin need to turn up the heat. We cannot have a repeat of the Clinton years where lies go unchallenged. Barack Obama is not an anti-Semite, but he sure hangs around with too many people who are. His judgment and character are reflective of a man with no experience on anything that matters.

Obama also wants to declare his possible election as a national holiday. The Constitution already gives Americans 2 hours off of work to vote. Apparently Obama voters are slow, and need more time. Obama wants them to take the entire day off to vote for him. Not since the 400,000 Man March (million for those that exaggerate support) when men were told to take the day off and leave their families at home to attend a rally about personal responsibility have I been so inspired. Not since Spike Lee wanted Americans to get better educated by skipping school and attending one of his movies have I felt something was so meaningful.

Forget being productive and contributing to the economy. By voting for Obama, everything will magically be ok, except for the 90% of us that are hurt by his policies when the rich pass the pain onto us.

We get the leader we deserve, and I will respect the will of the voters. I still maintain that we cannot let the children run the house. We need adults in charge, and John McCain is an adult.

We are in a war of civilization vs barbarism. John McCain is a warrior.

Most importantly, John McCain can be trusted. He does not shove people under the bus when they become liabilities. He stays with them in foxholes and refuses to come home without his fellow men and his honor intact.

Honor…integrity…trust…I support John McCain.

eric

Read more from this writer on The Tygrrrr Express.