Friday, May 22, 2009
From Jihad Watch
May 22, 2009
"These are people who were eager to bring death to Jews and the Jewish community"
This update on the Bronx Synagogue Jihad story shows again the inveterate Jew-hatred that animates so much jihad activity.
"'Terror' Thugs' Sick Bloodlust," by Rebecca Rosenberg, Murray Weiss and Dan Mangan in the New York Post, May 22 (thanks to James):
Four Muslims accused of trying to bomb two Bronx synagogues and shoot down military planes "are extremely violent men who eagerly embraced any opportunity" to kill Americans, a prosecutor said yesterday -- as relatives revealed that the suspects became radicalized in the state prison system.
"These are people who were eager to bring death to Jews and the Jewish community," Assistant US Attorney Eric Snyder said in White Plains federal court. "It's hard to envision a more chilling plot."
One of the ex-cons, David "Daoud" Williams, was "bragging, boasting he'd shoot anyone who tried to stop him" from carrying out the terror plot Wednesday night, and eagerly anticipated watching news accounts of the attacks, Snyder said.
Williams wanted to be able to say, "I'm the one who did that; that's my work right there," Snyder claimed.
"In a group of extremely violent men, he stands out as more violent," Snyder said of the shackled Williams, who snarled, mumbled answers to a judge and struggled to keep his pants from falling down during the hearing.
Williams and his co-defendants -- alleged ringleader James "Abdul Rahman" Cromitie, Onta "Hamza" Williams and Laguerre "Amin" Payen -- were ordered held without bail....
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
If George Bush had done such a thing, black leaders from across the nation would be screaming "RAAACCIISTTT!!" at the top of their collective lungs--yet we hear barely a peep in the media about Obama doing the same thing. Hmmm...I am confused. If Obama is the first black president (I always wonder about the white half...but nevermind) why is he now advocating and facilitating genocide in a city that is overwhelmingly black?
Saturday, May 16, 2009
I allowed the article I posted a few days ago (see below) to tip me off balance. I didn't fall off the beam completely, I teetered and tottered (new words?) and my thanks to a very nice man who reached through the darkness last night to nudge me back on track.
I am still deeply concerned about this bill in committee, however. I think very many of our governmental agencies and programs which were originally created with the most noble of intentions have now been perverted to serve NOT the people of this country, but to serve and assist the government against the people--as we saw with the recent flap about the Dept of Homeland Security memo. Even though that memo was eventually withdrawn, I have a strong suspicion it will reappear, just with different wording. The same people who produced it are still there, including Napolitano.
I worry about things like that. Sometimes my worry pushes me a bit off balance, but, I have so very much to lose if everything falls apart in this country. I'm willing to be a "wacky right winger" if I have to be sometimes, but most of the time I think I do alright on the balance beam.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
By Nancy Matthis Wednesday, May 13th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Detainment facilities to house American citizens, guarded by armed soldiers or paramilitary troops, will be built by the Department of Homeland Security, under a new bill in the House of Representatives. The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (H.R. 645)
“to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations” was introduced in the House by disgraced former Florida judge and now Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL). [Hastings, you will recall, was impeached from his judgeship in 1989 by the House of Representatives for accepting a $150,000 bribe and committing perjury to cover up.]
We recommend using the Open Congress posting of this legislation because it can be annotated with citizen commentary. Alternatively, the GovTrack version is here and the Library of Congress (Thomas) version is here. You can follow the ongoing status of the bill here.
Ostensibly, this legislation is proposed to remedy relocation difficulties from natural or man-made disasters, such as those experienced following hurricane Katrina. That argument is specious, because the Katrina disaster was exacerbated, not by a lack of preparedness, but by the ineptitude of then Democrat-controlled governments of the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisianna (see Katrina’s Timeline). In more recent emergencies, beginning with Gustav, southern states with Republican governors have demonstrated remarkable efficiency in evacuating at-risk populations to civilian facilities such as schools and convention centers (see Here Comes Gustav, Jindal-LA; Gov. Perry Issues Disaster Declaration in Anticipation of Tropical Storm Perry-TX; Florida braces for one-two punch from storms Crist-FL; Governor Barbour Prepares Mississippi for Gustav Barbour-MS). We recall heartwarming pictures of school bus convoys loading threatened residents and their pets, people with dogs and cats in carriers, old folk carrying bird cages. Way to go!
Since the Katrina problem has demonstrably been solved, many are suspicious of this new bill. From Global Research, Canada:
Preparing for Civil Unrest in AmericaLegislation to Establish Internment Camps on US Military Bases
Directly related to the issue of curbing social unrest, [a] cohesive system of detention camps is also envisaged, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon.
A bill entitled the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (HR 645) was introduced in the US Congress in January. It calls for the establishment of six national emergency centers in major regions in the US to be located on existing military installations….
The stated purpose of the “national emergency centers” is to provide “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster.” In actuality, what we are dealing with are FEMA internment camps. HR 645 states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”…. (emphasis mine)
These “civilian facilities” on US military bases are to be established in cooperation with the US Military. Modeled on Guantanamo, what we are dealing with is the militarization of FEMA internment facilities.
Once a person is arrested and interned in a FEMA camp located on a military base, that person would in all likelihood, under a national emergency, fall under the de facto jurisdiction of the Military: civilian justice and law enforcement including habeas corpus would no longer apply.
HR 645 bears a direct relationship to the economic crisis and the likelihood of mass protests across America. It constitutes a further move to militarize civilian law enforcement, repealing the Posse Comitatus Act.
Law enforcement reporter and policeman Jim Kouri writes in the Washington Examiner:
Obama and Congress to create US emergency centers or prison camps?
The House bill (HR 645) is not even on the radar of members of the elite media. According to critics of the plan, if passed the government will create camps or centers that by their nature restrict the activities of US citizens herded into them…
One critic, political strategist [former CIA analyst] Mike Baker claims the idea of such detention center smacks of forced incarceration in concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany, which Americans find repugnant.
Hastings bill is suspected of attempting to help expand President Obama’s military and law enforcement powers….
“While Obama and his team are making it sound as if they will use the military in a non-combative roll, part of the training being conducted is in urban warfare,” claims political strategist Mike Baker. “Obama appears oblivious to Posse Comitatus and to the US Constitution when it comes to using the military against civilians within US borders,” he said.
And it is a fact that our military is being retrained for civilian population control.
From Army Times — Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1 :
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home….
It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities….
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control….
Prison camps are certainly not unheard of in the United States.
During World War II there were three categories of prison camps:
Japanese-American citizens were interned in facilities on the west coast,
Axis citizens deported from South America and Axis sailors caught in our ports at the outbreak of war were detained in about twenty INS facilities in the US, and
German prisoners of war were kept in prison camps on federal land, such as national parks.
When I was a young girl, the family used to go for a car ride in the country on Sundays, and during World War II, we would drive past the local prison camp and look at the young German soldiers, much as we toured the gaily lit houses at Christmastime. Our favorite attraction was located near Fort Niagara, on federal park land in New York State. And the young Germans would stand pressed to the perimeter fence and stare back at us, at the parade of well-dressed people and their fine cars who had come to gawk. After the war, most of them wanted to stay in the US and got jobs here if they could. Willie, the janitor in our apartment building, was one of those newly freed prisoners, and considered his capture one of the best things that ever happened to him, because it brought him to America and eventually a decent way to make a living.
More recently, the illegal immigrants rounded up in the Agriprocessors meat-packing plant raid in Postville, Iowa were kept in a detainment facility. And Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio houses illegal aliens convicted of crime in a detention/work camp, where about 2000 inmates live in tents. But these historical and current examples involve people who have declared war or committed a crime. What about ordinary citizens?
All the legal power required to round up and inter large segments of the United States population already exists — see the list of Executive Orders below, which have the force of law. So the issue of whether Barack Hussein Obama can inter dissident segments of the US population is settled — he can. The only remaining question is whether he would really do that. Now to most reasonable Americans this sounds like the far-right stuff of conspiracy theory. So I will not offer any opinions here. I will just lay some extant facts on the table.
Obama’s entire formative life — childhood upbringing, cultural milieu, schooling, mentoring, early political career and associations — was almost entirely an environment of socialism, Marxism, communism.
Among Obama’s social and professional friends, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (radical husband and wife team) were prominent. Ayers and Dohrn were and are unrepentent advocates of the Weather Underground, devoted to destroying our government and our way of life. On May 21, 1970 an audiotape recorded by Dohrn announced a declaration of war on the United States. (Copies of four manifestos issued by Dohrn are linked in the references.) Obama’s political career was launched at a party in their Chicago home and his work environment was interlaced with theirs, sharing grant funding and at some points sharing an office.
Larry Grathwol was an undercover operative for law enforcement who infiltrated the Weather Underground. He discovered not only that Ayers’ intention was the overthrow of capitalism, but that Ayers expected to set up re-education camps, and “eliminate” an estimated 25 million dissident citizens that could not be re-educated (read the transcript of Grathwol’s testimony here).
During the presidential campaign, Obama announced his intention to set up a civilian national security force (seeing is believing, here’s a video of his speech):
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve gotta have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded…
What’s the difference? All military officers take an oath to defend the Constitution. A civilian force would report to the executive.
The current administration, in their DHS Memo Rightwing Extremism Threat Assessment, has listed characteristics that describe most freedom loving Americans, including returning vets, right-to-life and gun rights advocates, people who display the Gadsden flag, those who oppose illegal immigration or are concerned about loss of US sovereignty, or people who cast a third party vote for Ron Paul or Bob Barr. Beyond the DHS memo, we have heard Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Napolitano demonize people who attended tea parties, calling them rightwing extremists or “unhealthy.” Also, we are aware of their arrogant disdain for people who cling to their religion and their guns.
In July 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was tasked with preparing “emergency, makeshift cities that could house hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans” and given a six-month deadline. This was a response to the 9-11 attacks, and in anticipation of potential terrorist destruction or chemical/biological contamination of American cities. The initiative was understandable, in context, if not optimal. In January 2006 a Haliburton subsidiary was awarded a $385 million contract“for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities/” There are now reported to be over 600 of these facilities completely ready for use.
In view of already established infrastructure, what could be the rationale behind the new legislation, H.R. 645, which suggests six large camps? The existing camps, averaging 12 per state, would necessarily rely on significant numbers of local personnel for services and enforcement. In a country with our traditions of freedom, not enough law officers only loyal to the executive could be found. Reducing the number of camps to six super-camps would make the logistical and staffing problems more tractable, if a totalitarian power grab were to be tried. Just a thought!
In a previous article, we described the two-step process for eroding freedom, namely:
Use a real or manufactured crisis to induce public fear
Enact draconian laws (or take Orwellian measures) to remedy the crisis, preying on that fear to leverage increased government control and decreased personal freedom that the public would not normally accept.
If internment were to be carried out, the perpetrators would use a crisis as cover for the action — a terrorist attack, a pandemic, or civil unrest are some possibilities. So it is clear that, however egregious this Democratic administration becomes, civil unrest should be avoided at all costs.
There are two or three legal ways that an enlightened and aroused public can retake control of this country peaceably, which we will examine in a future article. And it is encouraging to keep in mind that totalitarian regimes in other countries have fallen through the peaceful resistance of courageous men like Mahatma Gandhi, Lech Walesa, Václav Havel, and Nelson Mandela. And we have no shortage of patriots.
Here’s a partial list of executive orders that already have the force of law — The FEMA list of Presidential Executive Orders. All of these were in place before Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office:
#10995 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS — Seizure of all communications media in the United States.
#10997 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR — Seizure of all electric power, fuels, and minerals, both public and private.
#10998 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE — Seizure of all food supplies and resources, public, and private, all farms and farm equipment.
#10999 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE — Seizure of all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and waterways.
#11000 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR — Seizure of all American population for work forces under federal supervision, including dividing families as necessary according to governmental plans.
#11001 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE — Seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.
#11002by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL — Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the U.S.
#11003 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY — Seizure of all airports and aircraft.
#11004 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING CERTAIN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR — Seizure of all housing and finance authorities, to establish Forced Relocation. Designates areas to be abandoned as “unsafe,” establishes new locations for populations, relocates communications, builds new housing with public (’tax-payers’) funds.
#11005 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION — Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private.
#11051 by John Kennedy, 1962: PRESCRIBING RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING IN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT — Provides the Office of Emergency Planning complete authorisation to put the above orders into effect in times of increased international tension or economic or financial crisis.
#11490 by Richard Nixon, 1969: Assigning emergency preparedness functions to Federal departments and agencies — Combines Executive Orders #11001 to #11005 and #11051 into a single Executive Order.
#11921 by Gerald Ford, 1976: Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignments to Organizational and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies — F.E.M.A. is authorised to develop plans control energy, prices and wages, credit and the money supply to U.S. banks in the event of a ‘National Emergency.’ Congress may not review a President’s decision to enforce a ‘National Emergency’ for six months. (emphasis mine)
#12656 by Ronald Reagan, 1988: Assigmment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities — The National Security Council given authority to determine requisite emergency powers (increased domestic surveillance, isolation of communites, restriction of movement for groups and individuals in the USA, control of airspace, use of the national guard to enforce laws and seal borders).
#12919 by Bill Clinton, 1994: NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS — “National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness” delegates authorities, responsibilities and allocations of F.E.M.A.’s Executive Orders for the confiscation of ALL PROPERTY from the American people, and their re-location and assignment to ‘labor’ camps. This Executive Order also supersedes or revokes eleven (11) previous Executive Orders [from 1939 through 1991] and amends Executive Order #10789 and #11790. The declaration of a ‘National Emergency’ by the President may immediately lead to the implementation of all or part of these provisions and if he so desires he may implement martial law, suspend the Constitution, nulify habeas corpus and all other personal liberties and rights.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
FLASH: Pope Benedict walks out on Sheikh as he attacks Israel in unplanned speech
3:30pm - update with photo, caption and bolding:
Rabby Shaer Yashuu Cohen, cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fouad Twal and Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi attend a meeting of representatives of the organizations for the interreligious dialogue in the Notre Dame Jerusalem Centre in Jerusalem on May 11, 2009. Tamimi, a senior Palestinian Muslim cleric, fiercely denounced Israeli policy in Jerusalem in the presence of Pope Benedict on Monday and appealed to the pope to help end what he called the "crimes" of the Jewish state.
From the Jerusalem Post, this just hit the wire in the last hour (bolding mine):
Chief Islamic Judge of the Palestinian Authority, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, launched a poisonous verbal attack at Israel at a Monday night gathering attended by Pope Benedict XVI.In a meeting with organizations involved in inter-religious dialogue at the Notre Dame Jerusalem Center, Tamimi called upon Muslims and Christians to unite against what he said were the murderous Israelis.Taking the podium after the pope without being on the original list of speakers scheduled for the evening, Tamimi, speaking at length in Arabic, accused Israel of murdering women and children in Gaza and making Palestinians refugees, and declared Jerusalem the eternal Palestinian capital.
Following the diatribe and before the meeting was officially over, the pope exited the premises. Army Radio reported that the pope shook Tamimi's hand before walking out.Minutes after the embarrassing occurrence, Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See press office, released a response to the incident."
The intervention of Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi was not previewed by the organizers of the interreligious meeting that took place at Notre Dame Centre in Jerusalem," the message read. "In a meeting dedicated to dialogue, this intervention was a direct negation of what [it] should be," it continued."We hope that such an incident will not damage the mission of the Holy Father aiming at promoting peace and interreligious dialogue, as he has clearly affirmed in many occasions in this pilgrimage," Father Lombardi added."We hope also that interreligious dialogue in the holy land will not be damaged by this incident," the message concluded.
Nine years ago, Tamimi caused a similar scandal when at an interfaith meeting attended by then-Pope John Paul II at the Notre Dame Jerusalem Center, the Palestinian religious leader condemned Israel for a long list of offenses.
My kibitz: Pope Benedict is a model of Catholic dialogue. Evidently there are some cases of "dialogue" that are actually "false dialogue". If Pope Benedict is willing to walk out of a dialogue he sees as unfruitful and even harmful, what should that tell us about avoiding situations of dialogue that contradict our Catholic principles?
Oh and PS ... the "Notre Dame Center"?
update 2 - a testimony from someone claiming to have been in the audience, from my combox:
I was there, In ND of Jerusalem. It was very evident how Msgr. George got nervous when Tamimi stood up and approached the microphone... He initiated sayin to the Pope: "Welcome to Jerusalem, capital of Palestine"... so you can imagine the rest of the speech. His tone was very strong, not very friendly. At some point some people (I guess the arabic speakers) started to clap hands supporting him. The Pope's "nunzio", ambassador, in Israel, when directly to the podium to ask Tamimi to end his speech. He ended and walked in front of the Pope and gave him a very distant hand greeting. After that, the Pope left the place, and in the way he stopped to say something and goodbye to Tamimi.Whispers has also published coverage.
Monday, May 11, 2009
“That’s liberalism in the government; they just can’t get out of people’s way. You want the war to be over---get outta the way! You want the economy fixed--- get outta the way! You want energy independence --- get outta the way...!”
On Sarah Palin “Liberal men don’t like her because she is a threat to what they want women to be---objectified. Liberal women don’t like Sarah Palin because she has been able to resist what liberalism has done to you.”
“…I watch how you liberals are trying to destroy Sarah Palin and it’s so funny that you so called all accepting, tolerant, non- judgmental liberals are the most judgmental people in America.”
“…Conservatives walk a narrow path that you liberals can barely crawl on. And you wait like trap-door spiders for conservatives to loose their balance and then inject high doses of venomous judgment”
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Last week however, the Obama drama increased again when Dear Leader released the "torture memos" In spite of strong warnings from men much wiser than I, he released them. Now, he is going to release photos. Does anyone think that besides Dear Leader and Nancy Pelosi and probably Harry Reid, the Islamic extremists are going to just smile and nod and say "O thank you so much Dear Leader of the Infidels" or is it more likely they are going to default to howling in outrage and increase their violent attacks against our soldiers still in Iraq and Afghanistan? These are the same people who rioted and murdered because of a couple of cartoons.
I don't like the idea of torture. It makes me cringe. I am not sure I could interrogate someone using the methods that were allowed by the government during the Bush administration. But, I sleep at night with gratitude knowing there are men who are willing to live with deliberately inflicting fear and pain on another person, who is intent on killing other Americans. We, Americans did not ask for this fight. Why then are the Democrats trying to undermine everything we have fought for in the last 8 years? Why are they so intent to tell our ENEMIES just what they can expect in case they are captured? Do any of them realize all the enemy has to do to become stronger is simply open schools and train with the same methods outlined in those memos?
How were those terrorists tortured? Did they have acid poured all over their bodies and were they left alone in a dark room to gasp and cry until they finally died? Were they sealed up in plastic garbage bags and tossed into a dumpster until they suffocated? Were they pulled limb from limb and then ground up and sucked through a plastic tube? Were they stabbed in the back of the skull and their brains were vacuumed out until their skulls were collapsed? No? Well, then what happened to them?
They were slapped, kept awake, made to sit in uncomfortable positions, denied food and water for a time, oh...and forced to stand naked and horror of horrors, the Fuzzy Caterpillar technique. The really stubborn ones got the special of the day--water boarded. Wow...they had water poured over their faces until they cried "Uncle" Yeah, that's just horrible. Of course, they had a choice. First, they didn't have to become terrorists. Not all Muslims are terrorist, so they had a choice. Since they bypassed their first choice, let's look at the second choice--cooperation. They refused. Oh well...sorry. If you don't want to get treated like a Terrorist---then try not to act like one...at least they have a choice.
Bloodman Obama and his bunch of Democratic lapdogs are willing to deny a helpless infant, medical care in the event of a botched abortion. They are willing to sign the death warrant for millions of Americans not yet born using methods that are beyond anything that was ever done to the terrorists in GITMO. But, the Democrats are convulsing in false outrage over the "torture memos" when they endorse, encourage and facilitate actions much worse in the name of a woman's right to choose.
I can show you videos of torture. I can show you videos of jihadis sawing off a captured Pakistani soldier's head as he lay bound and writhing on the ground. I can show you video of Talibani justice in which a woman is buried up to her chest in dirt and then stoned to death. I can show you videos of a woman being beaten and burned by the Taliban for accidentally showing her ankles in public. I can show you videos of torture, but please don't try to tell me what happened to those TERRORISTS in GITMO was torture.
Maybe when Bloodman Obama finds his elusive moderate taliban, I will find my elusive sympathy for GITMO detainees...or maybe not.
Life. Give it a chance.This video is the second in a series, I posted the first one back in January. I think this one is even better. Pass it along.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Back in the winter I posted a few blogs voicing my concern about the doctrine that isn't the Fairness Doctrine and was promtly blasted for contributing to the uneducated redneck stereotype because I didn't fully "comprehend" my blogging subject for the day. Well, I disagree.
In the past months I have watched a local columnist link local "right wing" bloggers to Tim McVeigh, Missouri issue an alert for people who oppose the current administration,support pro-life,Israel,the Constitution, Ron Paul, the One wants to raise an army of Obamites, the FBI inflitrate and photograph the TEA parties, the Dept of Homeland Security classify returning veterans, religious, pro-lifers,Constitutionalist, etc...as potential terrorists, then the article posted by Butch Cassidy yesterday about the protections for sexual deviants over the rights of ordinary citizens, and then this gem today, HR 1966. This act is designed to protect people from cyberbullying (how that makes any sense I have no clue since no one forces another person to log onto a website) with this type of language in the bill
[Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.]
What?? Does that mean if I am engaged in an internet debate with a fellow living in England and I hurt his feelings --that he can then file charges against me under this new bill? Who decides my "intent"? Or more locally, what if I'm engaged in defending myself from being called raaaacist for the umpteenth time and I hurt someone's feelings--am I then guilty of intent to cause substantial emotional distress by using electronic means in a repeated and hostile manner?
Now, I know the first intent of this bill was to protect youngsters on the internet in the wake of the tragic death of Megan Meir---but, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Los Angeles isn't happy with just protecting young people. In the terminally stupid mode of those liberals among us who just do not understand that we will fight to the death any attempts to try to remove our right of free speech,she has extended that protection one giant step further---to everyone.
So, riddle me this--if the doctrine that isn't the fairness doctrine says we all have to play nice and get along or go to jail--will it be applied equally and fairly to both sides? Doubtful. Fairness only seems to be something the current administration applies when it benefits one side--their side. The preferred method of operation for a thugocracy it seems.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The President's approval rating has dropped 27 points in the last 100 days. A strange anomoly for the One who was going to fix all of our souls and stop the rise of the oceans etc. etc...can it be the One is just a man after all, that maybe more and more Americans are waking up from their HopenChange stupor and realize that he is not the one we've been waiting for or in the words of Homer Simpson---D'oh!!
At least by the standard of approval ratings.
Though Obama's job approval score is strong and has been since he took office, historical polling data shows Obama's popularity during his first 100 days is right in the middle of the scores other new presidents received from the public over the past 60 years.
Obama's 63 percent average, according to a study released by Gallup last month, is the highest for a new president since Jimmy Carter (he clocked in at 69 percent during his first 100 days).
But John F. Kennedy bested Obama by more than 10 points, with 74 percent. Dwight Eisenhower enjoyed a 71 percent rating early on.
Even Richard Nixon averaged a 62 percent approval rating, just 1 point shy of Obama's.
Overall, Obama's average for the first three months matched the historical average of 63 percent for presidents since Eisenhower.
When you include presidents who took the oath mid-term -- after the death or resignation of a president -- Obama's 63 percent looks paltry.
Harry Truman enjoyed 87 percent approval, while Lyndon Johnson enjoyed 76 percent.
Obama might have benefited, too, from the unpopularity of his predecessor.
Even after the contested 2000 election, though, George W. Bush averaged 58 percent in his first 100 days, according to the study.
Ronald Reagan averaged 60 percent, George H.W. Bush averaged 57 percent and Bill Clinton
averaged 55 percent.
(same numbers--I just lined them up because I'm helpful that way)
Historical average of 63 percent for presidents since Eisenhower.
Harry Truman 87 %
Lyndon Johnson 76 %
John F. Kennedy 74 %
Dwight Eisenhower 71%
Jimmy Carter 69 %
Obama's 63 %
Richard Nixon 62%
Ronald Reagan 60 %
George W. Bush 58 %
George H.W. Bush 57%
Bill Clinton 55 %