Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

Give Who a Break?

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

-

Did you read that commie bitch Kathleen Parker last week? She referred to Rick Perry as “George W. Perry”   She was cancelled on an MSNBC (or was it CNN, or who cares?) show with Elliot Spitzer … What does that tell ya?   

Why is Fox News beating the crap out of CNN and MSNBC? Simple - It’s because the illiterate morons that elected obama watch Captain Kangaroo in their pajamas all day, eating Coco Puffs and Fruit Loops   They don’t watch news and do not even know what the issues of any campaign are.  During Howard Stern’s 2009  street interviews, obama supporters claimed to support him in part because Sarah Palin was his running mate.  Ah, don’t get me started …

High School Principal Takes a Bold Stand

Monday, November 1st, 2010

This is a statement that was read over the PA system at a football game at Roane County High School in Kingston, Tennessee  by school Principal, Jody McLeod … The speech was later read into the Congressional Record by Representative Zach Wamp of Tennessee.

Even that left wing leaning arm of socialism snopes.com confirms this one:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/mcloud.asp

“It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country.”

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it “an alternate life style,” and if someone is offended, that’s OK.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, “safe sex.” If someone is offended, that’s OK.

I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a “viable! means of birth control.” If someone is offended, no problem…

I can designate a school day as “Earth Day” and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess “Mother Earth” and call it “ecology..”

I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depicts people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as “simple minded” and “ignorant” and call it “enlightenment..”

However, if anyone uses this facility to honor GOD and to ask HIM to Bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated.

This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except GOD and HIS Commandments.

Nevertheless , as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression.

For this reason, I shall “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” and refrain from praying at this time.

” However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank GOD and ask HIM, in the name of JESUS, to Bless this event, please feel free to do so.. As far as I know, that’s not against the law—-yet.”

One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one another and began to pray.

They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer’s Box!

The only place they didn’t pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States of America- the Seat of “Justice” in the “one nation, under GOD.”

Somehow, Kingston , Tennessee Remembered what so many have forgotten. We are given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion. Praise GOD that HIS remnant remains!

Conservatives to Liberals … We Want a Divorce!

Sunday, December 20th, 2009

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that many of us want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the  sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy!

Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don’t like to redistribute taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them at once).

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you MSNBC and Hollywood ..You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them with security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru and Volvo station wagon you can find. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya”, or “We Are the World”.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it so often offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass a link to this blog to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, don’t.  In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll be willing to bet as to who will need whose help in 15 years.

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P. S. S.  And we won’t have to press 1 for English.

In God We Trust!!                            

Support for Obamacare?

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Americans and a blind eye to history

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

 pam geller

Pam Geller

I am a student of history.  Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life.  I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis.  Yes, these exist but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus. 

Something of historic proportions is happening.  I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it.  Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years.  The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two. 


We demanded and then codified into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people whom we knew could never pay back?  Why?  We learned recently that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms.  That is our money. Yours and mine.  And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. 

Who has this money?  Why do they have it?  Why are the terms unavailable to us?  Who asked for it?  Who authorized it?  I thought this was a government of “We the People,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders.  Apparently not. 


We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy.  Why? 

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving.  Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate.  Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity.  Why? 

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman.  Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?).  We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic.  To what purpose? 

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government.  Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about.)  The list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.  It is potentially 1929 x 10.   And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.  And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska.  All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders?  No?  Oh, of course.  The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it.  Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.) 

Mr.. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word:  Change…radical change.  Why? 

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.  This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life.  In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure.  Change is indeed coming.  And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. 

And that is only the beginning. 


I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s.  In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing.  What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises.  Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker..  And he smiled and waved a lot.  And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. 

And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression].  Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy.  The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think.  How did he get the people on his side?  He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex.  He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. 

He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that?  And he did this all in the name of justice and…change.  And the people surely got what they voted for.  (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)  Read your history books.  Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.  When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker.  He was right, though. 

Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe  It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities.  And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.  All with the best of intentions, of course.  The road to Hell is paved with them. 

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice:  I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong, close my eyes, have another latte and ignore what is transpiring around me. 


Some people scoff at me; others laugh or think I am foolish, naive, or both..  Perhaps I am.  But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe - and why I believe it.  I pray I am wrong.  But, I do not think I am. 


About the author via Google 
Pamela “Atlas” Geller began her publishing career at The New York Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York Observer as Associate Publisher.  She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child, but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School

After 9/11, Atlas had the veil of oblivion violently lifted from her consciousness and immersed herself in the education and understanding of geopolitics, Islam, terror, foreign affairs and imminent threats the mainstream media and the government wouldn’t cover or discuss.

Humility … It’s Below His Pay Grade

Monday, July 27th, 2009

“There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” –Thomas Jefferson

When a slick “community organizer” cons his way into the White House, you may be able to take him out of the hood, but you can’t get the hood out of him.

When Barack Hussein Obama interrupted a recent live media propaganda confab on his administration’s most critical national initiative (socializing health care) in order to accuse a local police officer of “acting stupidly,” he got more than my attention; he earned my disrespect — and that of most law enforcement offices and veteran officers across the nation.

I graduated from a state police academy at age 19 and worked as a uniformed patrolman for the next four years while completing my undergraduate degree. That was many years ago, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as a “former police officer.” You can take a trooper off patrol, but can’t get the patrol out of a former trooper.

On occasion when my kids and I watch the television program “Cops,” with its familiar theme song “Bad Boys” and cameras recording real patrol officers on pursuits and takedowns, they know that I am not so much watching the show as I am vicariously riding shotgun.

So when Obama used a national soapbox to unfairly chastise a local Cambridge, Massachusetts, police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, for arresting one of BHO’s comrades, Harvard professor Henry Gates, Obama also took a cheap shot at every sworn officer and veteran officer in America. It’s a big fraternity, and even a novice like Obama should have known better.

There is an old but good adage, which Obama might want to learn before even the most devoted of his disciples declares the emperor has no clothes: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!”

Of course when a pathological narcissist like Obama finds himself at odds with reality, he inevitably endeavors to alter reality.

Unless you just returned from Mars, you undoubtedly know the sequence of events regarding the arrest of H.L. Gates for disorderly conduct. Turns out, the arrest was fully justified and, having “been there and done that,” there was no question in my mind from the start of this controversy that Gates blew a gasket, and the officer’s actions were justified. (Gates might also benefit from the “stop digging” maxim.)

In any event, Obama, who has himself been so steeped in a culture of ethnocentric elitism by mentors of racial hatred like his old “pastor,” Jeremiah Wright, could not help but assume that the arrest of Gates was the result of racism.

Gates under arrest

Under pressure from a black president, a black Massachusetts governor (Deval Patrick) and a black Cambridge City mayor (Denise Simmons), the district attorney dropped charges against Gates before any of the facts of his arrest were reviewed.

Obama said the police “acted stupidly,” Patrick protested that this was “every black man’s nightmare,” and Simmons concluded, “the incident of July 16, 2009 was regrettable and unfortunate.”

However, as I said, Gates’ conduct was, at best, disorderly, and the arresting officer not only used restraint and good judgment in his actions, but Sgt. Crowley and a fellow black officer have, for the last five years, been instructors for a racial profiling class at the Lowell Police Academy in Boston, and Crowley was handpicked for that post by a senior officer who happens to be black.

At noon last Friday, with all the facts in, there was a press conference called by numerous representatives of Massachusetts law enforcement associations and unions, in support of Crowley and condemning Obama and Patrick for there rush to racial accusations.

One of Crowley’s defenders, Dennis O’Connor, noted that Obama “used the right adjective but directed it to the wrong party” — that it was Gates who acted stupidly. Noting that Obama did qualify his remarks by indicating he did not have all the facts, O’Connor added, “When you don’t have all the facts, your next words should be ‘I have no comment.’”

Though Obama can extend the benefit of doubt to folks like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, when it comes to a couple of local cops, he convicted them sight unseen.

Steve Killian, president of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association called for Obama to “make an apology to all law-enforcement personnel.”

Not to be upstaged by the police unions, Obama made an unplanned appearance at a White House conference an hour after the Cambridge conference, to remake his case.

Receiving a reception similar to that George W. Bush received with his surprise appearance to have Thanksgiving dinner with our troops in Baghdad a few years ago, Obama’s unannounced appearance at the press conference elated his adoring MSM audience.

“Hey, it’s a cameo appearance. Sit down, sit down,” Obama said, like some Hollywood teen idol.

In one of the most contorted makeovers of his asinine remarks to date, Obama feigned “making nice” with Crowley and offered to have him and Gates as guests at the White House “for a beer.”

I am including a few Obama quotes below (with editorial reply), not only because he has dug himself deeper, but also because his comments were not read from a teleprompter. Consequently, the incidence of his verbal tick, “uh,” occurs at a ratio of 1.2 times for every 10 words. This is significant because for Obama, “uh” constitutes a “poker tell,” an unconscious cue that he is attempting to be deceptive.

When studying Obama’s unscripted comments, the occurrence of this tell at a ratio of 1/20 indicates his remarks are disingenuous. At 1.2/10, he is lying. (While the White House video mutes his verbal ticks and struck all of them from the text of his comments, you can read the full — and accurate — text of Obama’s comments here.)

“Uh, over the last day and a half, uh, obviously there’s been all sorts of controversy around, uh, the incident that happened in Cambridge with, uh, Professor Gates and the police department there. … Uh, and because, uh, this has been ratcheting up — uh, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up — uh, I want to make clear that in my choice of words, uh, I think I unfortunately, uh, gave an impression, uh, that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically — uh, and I could have calibrated those words differently.”

(I am certain that saying they “acted stupidly” constitutes “maligning.”)

“Uh, I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that, uh, there was an overreaction in, uh, pulling Professor Gates, uh, out of his home to the station. Uh, my sense is you’ve got two good people, uh, in a circumstance, uh, in which, uh, neither of them, uh, were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved.”

(Ah, they did not act stupidly, they just “overreacted.”)

“Uh, the fact that it has garnered so much attention I think is a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America.”

(No, Obama’s comment garnered so much attention because it was, uh, stupid.)

“Uh, what I’d like to do then I [sic] make sure that everybody … uh, not extrapolate too much from the facts — uh, but as I said at the press conference, uh, be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, uh, you know, African Americans are sensitive to these issues. And, uh … interactions between police officers and, uh, the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding.”

(What is clear, however, is that Leftist socialized programs ostensibly designed to give blacks a chance to attain the American dream, have spawned a subculture of nightmares, and there is no misunderstanding about the resulting disparity in criminal activity by race, or the burden that places on society, including police officers of all racial backgrounds, who have to deal with that burden.)

“Uh, my hope is, is that as a consequence of this event, uh, this ends up being what’s called a ‘teachable moment,’ where all of us, uh, instead of pumping up the volume spend a little more time listening to each other, uh … instead of flinging accusations, uh, we can, uh, all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do, uh, to contribute to, uh, more unity.”

(The most teachable moment in this event was when Obama didn’t have the facts. As previously suggested, Obama should learn to say, “no comment.” The only folks flinging accusations were Gates, Obama, Patrick and Simmons.)

“Uh, but, uh, I just wanted to emphasize that, uh, one, one last point I guess I would make. … Uh, the fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that, uh, uh, race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Uh, whether I were black or white, uh, I think that, uh, me commenting on this, uh, and hopefully contributing to constructive — uh, as opposed to negative — uh, understandings about the issue, uh, is part of my portfolio.”(Actually, it became a big issue because Obama made a brainless accusation, and for sure, digging himself into a deeper hole is definitely part of his portfolio.)“So, uh, at the end of the conversation there was a discussion about — uh, uh, uh, my conversation with Sergeant Crowley, there was discussion about, uh, he and I, uh, and, uh, Professor Gates having a beer here in the White House. Uh, we don’t know if that’s scheduled yet — uh, — but, uh, uh, but we may put that together.”Perhaps Sgt. Crowley will take this bait and say nothing further, but it is clear that Obama has no intention of offering an apology. But in regards to his actions in the arrest of Gates, Sgt. Crowley says, “There will be no apology.” Back to Obama’s remarks at his health care confab, I credit him with stating accurately, “There is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact.”

Sometimes both white and black officers overstep their authority, and on occasion, that is motivated by racial tension. But it is difficult to avoid race-based profiling when the felonious crimes committed in our country are perpetrated by a grossly disproportionate number of black and Latino males. “And, that’s just a fact.” (Yes, yes, I know, victims of “the man,” one and all…)

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher,
PatriotPost.US

And a footnote: Regarding Obama and the Cambridge Police Department, you may recall that between 1989-1991, while a student at Harvard, Obama received 17 citations for offenses like parking in a bus-loading zone (how insensitive to those who must rely on public transportation). According to the Associated Press, Obama’s citations and late fees were paid by somebody “two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign.” I suppose he thought those citations were the result of racial profiling and thus, did not need paying.

Sotomayor and “Cultural Bias”?

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor
Charlie Savage, New York Times 

Washington — Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as “a product of affirmative action” who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to “cultural biases” that are “built into testing.” On another occasion, she aligned with conservatives who take a limited view of when international law can be enforced in U.S. courts.

But she criticized conservative objections to recent Supreme Court rulings that mention foreign law as being based on a “misunderstanding.” Those comments were among a trove of videos dating back nearly 25 years that shed new light on Sotomayor’s views. She provided the videos to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week as it prepares for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing next month.

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an “affirmative action baby” whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances. “If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted,” she said on a panel of three female judges from New York who were discussing women in the judiciary. The video is dated “early 1990s” in Senate records.

Her comments came in the context of explaining why she thought it was “critical that we promote diversity” by appointing more women and minority judges, and they provoked objections among other panelists who pointed out that she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and had been an editor on Yale’s law journal.

But Sotomayor insisted that her test scores were subpar - “though not so far off the mark that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.” Her scores have not been made public. “With my academic achievement in high school I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,” she said. “And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that - there are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”

Sotomayor’s approach to affirmative action has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Conservatives have criticized her remarks in speeches that her personal experiences will influence her judging. If she is confirmed, Sotomayor would fill the seat being vacated by Justice David Souter, who has voted to uphold affirmative-action programs.

But in April, Sotomayor delivered a speech on how federal judges look at foreign and international law that suggested she may take a more conservative position on that topic than Souter. She said individuals have no right to file a lawsuit to enforce a treaty and ratified treaties are not legally binding unless Congress separately passes a statute to do so. Treaties usually have effect, she said, only if the president and Congress choose to respect such obligations as a matter of politics, not law. “Even though Article IV of the Constitution says that treaties are the ’supreme law of the land,’ in most instances they’re not even law,” she said.

That principle, she said, explained the outcome of a high-profile 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Medellin vs. Texas, which involved a ruling by the International Court of Justice that some Mexican inmates on death row in Texas should get new sentencing hearings because authorities failed to help them get assistance from the Mexican consulate, contrary to a treaty the United States had ratified.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the international court’s decision had no legal force and that the treaty was not binding, because Congress never passed a statute explicitly making it domestic law. The ruling, Sotomayor said, “surprised many human rights groups and civil liberties groups” but was “premised on very traditional American law principles.”

Her remarks aligned her with the Supreme Court’s majority; among the three dissenting votes in that case was Souter.

Copyright 2009 SF Chronicle

Panic Time for Pelosi

Friday, May 15th, 2009

Panic Time for Pelosi

Human Events
by  Jed Babbin 
05/01/2009


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a bad week. Caught between her own involvement in the CIA interrogations now condemned as torture and her party’s inquisitions, Pelosi floundered.  Her fear and frustration have apparently given way to panic after word reached her of the CIA’s reaction to the damage she, President Obama and other Democrats have done to the spy agency in the last three months.

 
Pelosi — as I wrote earlier in the week — was one of the few members of Congress briefed in detail on the harsh interrogation methods and who could have stopped them but didn’t. Pelosi first said that she wasn’t briefed about waterboarding. Then she sort of admitted she had, inserting that the CIA only said that they might do it, not that they were going to do it.  Which could have been plagiarized from John Kerry’s 2004 circular explanation of his vote for the war in Iraq.
 
As badly as that hurt Pelosi, what apparently pushed her into a panic was the feedback she and other Democrats are getting from the CIA.  Pelosi learned that her actions, and those of President Obama and other Democrats over the past ninety days have so damaged CIA morale that the agency’s ability to function could be in danger. 
 
As a result, two emergency closed-door meetings were called this week on Capitol Hill.
 
 The first meeting, on Tuesday evening, was attended by Pelosi, Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Tx) and others.  The following night, Pelosi and some or all of the other attendees met with CIA Director Leon Panetta, also behind closed doors. 
 
No Republicans were invited to either meeting which means the Democrats were assessing the damage and deciding how to maneuver their way out from under the responsibility for it.  Spin and strategy. 
 
Morale among in the spy agency is so low because of the relentless assault on the CIA in President Obama’s first 100 days.  The first blow to the CIA was his decision to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without any plan on what to do with the 240 dangerous detainees housed there.  Many CIA employees believe these people to be killers, responsible for the deaths of CIA operatives overseas.   Many in the CIA apparently see this as a betrayal. 
 
The Obama administration plan to set some of these people loose in the US was despite CIA objections.
 
And then came the president’s decision to release the so-called ”torture memos” and the disavowal of CIA interrogation methods. 
 
The president’s on-again, off-again promise to not prosecute CIA operatives who had conducted the harsher interrogations has left many in the CIA uncertain of his real intentions.  Leaving up to the Attorney General whether to prosecute the Bush-era lawyers who wrote the ”torture memos” has added to the already great doubt about the safety and security of CIA interrogators’ jobs, and more.
 
By the end of the meeting Wednesday, Pelosi, Reyes and Panetta apparently determined that damage control had to begin immediately.   
 
Later Wednesday evening, Reyes sent an unprecedented letter to CIA director Panetta making a sort of apology to the CIA.  Reyes’ cover letter asks Panetta to ”…disseminate it to the CIA workforce as soon as possible.”  (At this writing, the letter has not yet been distributed.)  The letter to CIA employees is a very odd mixture of praise for the CIA and CYA for Reyes.  (Click here to read the letter)
 
Reyes begins, ”In recent days, as the public debate regarding CIA’s interrogation practices has raged, you have been very much in my thoughts,” expressing his ”… deep gratitude for the work you do each day.”  
 
But then Reyes retreats into lawyer-isms:  ”First and foremost, I wholeheartedly support the President’s decision that no CIA officer or contractor will be prosecuted for authorized actions they took in the context of interrogations.”  In other words, if some young prosecutor or Capitol Hill staffer decides you did something unauthorized, you’re sunk.
 
And then comes the CYA for Reyes:  ”One important lesson to me from the CIA’s interrogation operations involves congressional oversight. I’m going to examine closely ways in which we can change the law to make our own oversight of the CIA more meaningful; I want to move from mere notification to real discussion.” 
 
The fact that ”mere notification” of the interrogation methods was comprised of a virtual tour of them matters not at all: Reyes’ letter says Congress should be held innocent of any wrongdoing.  If CIA morale was bad before the letter, it will be vastly worse after it. 
 
Worst of all is the next sentence:  ”Good oversight can lead to partnership, and that’s what I am looking to bring about.”  If there’s anything that could possibly make the CIA even less effective than it was before 9-11, that’s it.  The nation’s security requires that the CIA be strengthened and more effective, not bogged down with congressional tourism.  
 
And, by the way, what Reyes proposes is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine. Not that Reyes would care.   But the prospect of more Congressional involvement is just another morale killer. 
 
Obama’s first 100 days did enormous damage to our entire intelligence community.  It’s all too clear that Speaker Pelosi will do much more if she believes it will help her out of the corner she’s in.  Panicked people make mistakes.  Pelosi has made a big one in propelling the inquisition into the CIA interrogations  She will make more, and the damage to our intelligence gathering ability may be fatal to many Americans.
 
URL: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31689

Gay Marriage - Legally Speaking …

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

As an attorney I’d like to take a minute to explain how the law actually applies to this whole gay marriage thing, and I hope you will forward this to as many contacts as possible.  This is information that absolutely must be circulated.   Interestingly, it has nothing to do with religion; we are strictly talking United States statutory and common law here.

(I wish somehow Miss California could get this.  She instinctually knows something isn’t right about gay marriage, but she didn’t have the foundational ammunition, aside from her personal moral convictions, to explain why).

The Real Law and Gay Marriage, by Patti Thornhill, Esq.

Marriage is a license, which means it is a legal status that is recognized through the mechanism of the state.  It is in the same category as business licenses, driver’s licenses and professional licenses.  The very fact that marriage is a licensed status means that it is not an inherent right — if it were an inalienable right, there would be no need for licensing.  For example, one needs a license to practice certain trades, but one does not need a license to practice one’s religion.  The first is a privilege bestowed by a state mechanism and the latter is an inherent right.

When courts declare that homosexual marriage is a right, they are making declarations that are contrary to historical law and the Constitution.  They are also establishing a very dangerous precedent on many levels, including one that could be detrimental to the very people who seek the state’s recognition of their gay union.

First, allow me to explain how the concept of precedent operates in our system of law.

According to the rules of Western common law, precedent is used as a means to provide continuity, predictability and stability to the system of law.  It requires jurists to look at past judgments in cases factually similar to the one at hand and use those to guide the jurist into how he should rule on the case before him.  Law that applies to an earlier case that is applicable to a current case because of their factual similarities and jurisdictional connections is called mandatory authority, which means that the judge must rule on the current case according to the former ruling.  This system was put into place to avoid the capriciousness that often afflicts human judges, forcing them to apply the rule of law rather than pursuing their own individual inclinations which might be contaminated by laziness, prejudice, stupidity, ignorance, etc.  It also allows for the law to be applied equally to similarly situated cases.

When judges ignore precedent, they are opening the door for the rule of law to be completely disregarded.  This allows the individual jurists to enjoy more power over their rulings since there are fewer legal restrictions tying their hands.  Uncertainty ensues at best, and at worst, anarchy.

When jurists declare that homosexual marriage is legal because it is a civil right, not only could they not be more incorrect, but they are opening a Pandora’s box that can lead down a “slippery slope” that many advocates of gay marriage might not be aware of and certainly of which they would not support. 

The fact is, because of the way our common law system works, once gay marriage is ruled a civil right, then all unions between adults will have to be regarded as a civil right as well.  You simply cannot say that gay marriage is a civil right without regarding other adult unions as such as well.  Thus, once the precedent is established, the next adult union that will also have to be recognized by the state with a license will be polygamous marriage.  There will be no way to stop it because competent adults cannot be allowed to marry someone of the same sex while disallowing multiple competent adults of any combination the right to do the same thing.  Incestuous marriages will likely follow, although the state might be able to prevent this on the basis of an overriding concern with the genetic effects on offspring of such a union.

The argument that people will marry animals is not legally sound, since animals are not considered to be mentally competent to sign contracts.  The same argument applies to children — they are considered legal “incompetents” and therefore are prevented from being held to legal contracts until the age of majority.

But here is where things get sinister.  There is a movement afoot, not just in some fringe groups like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), but also in reputable sociological, psychological, and other academic circles, to lower the age of majority for children.  Some advocates even approve abolishing the age of majority altogether.  Their motives vary, but some pursue this for the purpose of “sexually liberating” children (i.e., they believe that society prevents children from enjoying their sexuality  by labeling them as children and applying legal sanctions to those who would encourage that enjoyment), to others who believe that society is denying children the privileges of humanhood by labeling them as minors.  In fact, early in her career, Hillary Clinton wrote extensively as a children’s advocate about the need to abolish the “minority status” of children, stating that doing so would be a great leap forward in line with “the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of married women.”  “Children,” she wrote, “would be like other persons…masters of their own destiny…capable of exercising rights and assuming responsibilities until it is proven otherwise.”  This movement towards liberating children from the right of their parents to make decisions on their behalf is often touted by state operatives under the guise of “children’s rights.”  The lowering or abolition of the minority status of children would allow them the same rights to engage in contracts as adults, including marriage contracts.

Many will scoff at this notion — “oh, that would never happen!”  Of course, twenty years ago, that same response would have been evoked had anyone offered that someday gay marriage would be legal. 

Licenses are bestowed by human beings through legal mechanisms because the people decide to recognize a status as a privilege.  As such, they can be confined particularly to one kind of arrangement and not others.  Therefore, if a community through its citizenry agrees to recognize gay marriage, because it is a privilege and not a right, they can confine the licensing to gay marriages only while legally excluding other marital combinations.

Another by-product often not considered by those lured into advocacy of gay marriage by virtue of the feel-good mantra of “equality” is that this subjects gay couples to identify themselves to the state, which they are encouraged to trust with this intimate knowledge.  But once the government knows who they are, will it always be so benevolent?  The government might indeed appear friendly to this status now, but governments are notorious for persecuting their own citizenry when unrestrained by the rule of law.  Anarchic systems normally give way to political voids that are filled with authoritative systems.  Is it impossible to consider that the system they trust to protect them now might not someday use this information and turn against them?

For most of western history, marriage was a contract between two families, and the state was not involved in this private arrangement. In the past, state licensing of marriage has reflected sinister motives.  Marriage licenses were used by 38 states in the 1920s to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays, or Filipinos without a state approved license. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “[t]he permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission…would be illegal.” The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. 

Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral. Libertarians, for instance, believes that all marriages should be private, not requiring sanction from the state.  Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between two people and God, so that no authorization from the state is required; in some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract, which is seen by some as an infringement.

Most Americans don’t care what consenting adults do when they are alone, but they feel nevertheless that something regarding the gay marriage issue is just not right.  They just can’t put their finger on it.

What many Americans sense instinctually is wrong with gay marriage has to do with misconstruction of the law.  It is abuse by the practitioners of the law that is giving many Americans pause here; if political operatives can manipulate the rule of law to satisfy one agenda, then they have the power to twist policy in any direction regardless of traditional and constitutional legal restraints.

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment

By Chuck Baldwin

March 3, 2009
This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090303.html
 

According to ABC News (Feb. 25, 2009), “The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“‘As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,’ Holder told reporters.”

Holder also said that President Obama would seek to make the assault weapons ban permanent, close the “gun show loophole,” and ban “cop-killer” bullets.

At this point, I believe it is incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made a career out of doing everything in their power to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the abovementioned “few gun-related changes,” there is the potential for widespread assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called “assault weapons” ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus spending bills–and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an “assault weapon.” By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle–in any configuration–is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of hunting, both predator and big game. The term “assault weapon” is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and public officials into passing a ban against semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun control zealots during the Clinton years railing against bolt-action rifles, calling them “sniper” rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms–any arms.

Of course, the “gun show loophole” is nothing more than the prohibition against private citizens selling and trading their own personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and Holders of this country that liberty is not a “loophole.”

In the beginning, the private sale and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the purpose for which gun shows were started. Today, commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears & Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning “cop-killer” bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four). This is just another approach to the same goal: the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much useless.

The Democrats went down this road in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton without a majority in either chamber. It was also an aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the underlying reality is that it is the individual States that must ultimately be guardians of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of course). States must be willing to resist any and all efforts by the central government to intrude upon their independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve after the federal government was created by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? Why? Because the States were deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment. Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior in scope.

As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Therefore, when the federal government begins to intrude upon the rights and liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the States to resist. Obviously, the way the federal government tries to keep States in subjection is through bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars unless States comply with their despotic machinations. And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are finally beginning to fight back.

According to World Net Daily, “So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

“Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.”

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana’s senators and representatives–along with its Secretary of State– proposed a resolution stating “that any ‘collective rights’ holding in D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana’s compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889.”

The Montana resolution recalls, “When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in
1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to ‘any person.’”

The resolution continues, “To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884.”

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, “There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract.”

The resolution ended by stating sternly, “A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.”

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think I’m reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I’ve just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State legislative body in America that believes in the Second Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing socialists know that they will not tolerate even one more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms–and that includes any so-called “assault weapons” ban.

And let’s never forget that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect themselves–and their States–against the tyrannical tendencies of their own government.

P.S. If anyone wants to see firsthand testimony regarding the importance of the Second Amendment, I encourage him or her to watch this testimony given before Congress not long ago:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin