Monday, January 31, 2011

Figures. Another Violent Leftist… Man Arrested for Explosives Outside Mosque Is Bush-Hating Islamic Convert

The violent crackpot who threatened to explode the Dearbornistan mosque was a leftist too. Just like Jared Loughner. In fact he’s a Bush-hating Islamic convert.

Detroit News reported:

A decorated Army veteran accused of plotting to blow up a Metro Detroit mosque served time in federal prison for threatening to kill President George W. Bush and bomb a Vermont veterans’ clinic in 2002.

Roger Stockham, 63, who flew 600 combat helicopter missions in Vietnam, is behind bars in Michigan after he drove from his home in California last week and parked a car with a trunk full of explosives outside the Islamic Center of America, authorities said.

What a complete shock. Expect not to see any of this reported on the Lamestream Media.

Source: Gatewaypundit

Federal Judge Rules Entire Health Care Law Unconstitutional


President Barack Obama’s health care reform legislation, assailed as an abuse of federal power in a 26-state lawsuit, was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida, declared the law unconstitutional in a ruling today. Then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed suit on behalf of 13 states on March 23, the same day Obama signed into law the legislation intended to provide the U.S. with almost universal health-care coverage. Seven states joined the litigation last year, and six signed on this year.

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional
A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The decision will likely face an immediate filing by the federal government for a stay, and the case is undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court.

Great cartoon from "Right Wing News" - Palin Knows the Difference (Comic)

Palin Knows the Difference (Comic)

Alternate punchlines:
"Batteries are useful."
"Batteries never killed anyone through gross negligence and rationing."
"Batteries don't cost billions of taxpayer dollars and then exacerbate the problem they were created to solve."

Q: How many Obamites does it take to change a light bulb?
A: NONE!! They'd rather sit in the dark and blame Bush!!!

Q: What's the difference between Sarah Palin's house and Obamacare?
A: Obamacare is a lot closer to Soviet Russia.


Repeal Obamacare NOW!

Congresswoman Bachmann • Tea Party Express Response to SOTU

Good evening, my name is Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota's 6th District.

I want to thank the Tea Party Express and Tea Party HD for inviting me to speak this evening. I'm here at their request and not to compete with the official Republican remarks. The Tea Party is a dynamic force for good in our national conversation, and it's an honor for me to speak with you.

Two years ago, when Barack Obama became our president, unemployment was 7.8 percent and our national debt stood at what seemed like a staggering $10.6 trillion dollars. We wondered whether the president would cut spending, reduce the deficit and implement real job-creating policies. Unfortunately, the president's strategy for recovery was to spend a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus program, fueled by borrowed money.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Palin: Obama's State of Union Full of 'WTF' Moments

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin joins us live. Good evening, Governor.


VAN SUSTEREN: I'm very well, but there are a lot of Americans aren't. They need jobs. What are we going to do about jobs? Do you have an idea that's any way different from what the president said last night because we're looking for all options?

PALIN: Well, speaking of last night, that was a tough speech to have to sit through and kind of try to stomach because the president is so off base in his ideas on how it is that he believes the government is going to create jobs. Obviously, government growth won't create any jobs. It's the private sector that can create the jobs.

And his theme last night in the Speaker of the House was the "WTF," you know, "Winning the Future." And I thought, "OK, that acronym, spot on." There were a lot of "WTF" moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can't allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt. That right there tells you he is so disconnected from reality! The problem is, we are buried under a mountain of debt, and jobs cannot be created by the private sector. We cannot grow and thrive and prosper as a nation when we are buried under this $14 trillion debt.

More of this interview complete with complete video coverarage after the jump.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

US fury over UN expert's 9/11 'cover-up' claims

UNITED NATIONS — The United States on Tuesday demanded the sacking of a UN human rights expert for "noxious" comments claiming there had been a US cover-up over the September 11 attacks.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the comments by Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, as "an affront" to the victims of the 2001 Al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington.

The US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, called Falk's views "despicable and deeply offensive" and said she had registered a protest and called for his dismissal.

Falk wrote in his personal blog on January 11 that there are "awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations" given for the attacks when hijacked jets crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

He said there was "an apparent cover-up" by the US government over its knowledge of the attacks masterminded by Osama bin Laden.

Falk said mainstream US media had been "unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an Al-Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials."

MDs fear healthcare reform: Thomson Reuters survey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed fear healthcare reform could worsen care for patients, by flooding their offices and hurting income, according to a Thomson Reuters survey released on Tuesday.

The survey of more than 2,900 doctors found many predict the legislation will force them to work harder for less money.

"When asked about the quality of healthcare in the U.S. over the next five years, 65 percent of the doctors believed it would deteriorate with only 18 percent predicting it would improve," Thomson Reuters, parent company of Reuters, said in a statement.

FACT CHECK: Obama and His Imbalanced Ledger

WASHINGTON -- The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.

Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."

But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.


OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. As recently as last month, Obama was prepared to sign a catchall spending measure stuffed with earmarks, before it collapsed in the Senate after an outcry from conservatives over the bill's $8 billion-plus in home-state pet projects.

It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.


OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.

Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has provided grants to test ideas aimed at reducing medical mistakes and resolving malpractice cases by negotiation, but has recommended no change in federal law.

Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases. In October 2009 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that government health care programs could save $41 billion over 10 years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted.


OBAMA: "The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it -- in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes."

THE FACTS: Obama's fiscal commission did not simply recommend cutting excessive spending; it proposed that the deficit could only be tamed by cutting $3 for every $1 of new revenue raised -- in other words, a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Instead, Obama proposed an overhaul of the corporate tax system that would eliminate loopholes and tax breaks but also reduce tax rates. The net effect would be neutral; it would not reduce or raise any revenue. Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."


OBAMA: "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations."

THE FACTS: With that comment, Obama missed another chance to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, he ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.


OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."

THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.


Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, giving the GOP response: "Whether sold as 'stimulus' or repackaged as 'investment,' their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much, taxes too much and spends too much in order to do too much."

THE FACTS: The economic stimulus package passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in February 2009 didn't raise taxes. Instead, about a third of the package -- nearly $300 billion -- was made up of temporary tax cuts. The biggest was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which provided up $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples. There were dozens of other tax cuts, including a more generous child tax credit, a tax credit for buying a home and a sales tax deduction for buying a car. Many, but not all, of the tax cuts have since expired.

Obama's health care law imposed new taxes, including a penalty for some people who don't get qualified health insurance, starting in 2014. But Obama extended Bush-era tax cuts that were due to expire at the beginning of the year. He also enacted a new one-year cut in the payroll tax for 2011 for just about every wage earner.
Print Close


Official Republican response to the SOTU Address.

The full text of the official Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address from Rep. Paul Ryan, as prepared for delivery.

Good evening. I'm Congressman Paul Ryan from Janesville, Wisconsin - and Chairman here at the House Budget Committee.

President Obama just addressed a Congressional chamber filled with many new faces. One face we did not see tonight was that of our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We all miss Gabby and her cheerful spirit; and we are praying for her return to the House Chamber.

Earlier this month, President Obama spoke movingly at a memorial event for the six people who died on that violent morning in Tucson. Still, there are no words that can lift the sorrow that now engulfs the families and friends of the fallen.

What we can do is assure them that the nation is praying for them; that, in the words of the Psalmist, the Lord heals the broken-hearted and binds up their wounds; and that over time grace will replace grief.

As Gabby continues to make encouraging progress, we must keep her and the others in our thoughts as we attend to the work now before us.

Tonight, the President focused a lot of attention on our economy in general - and on our deficit and debt in particular.

He was right to do so, and some of his words were reassuring. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I assure you that we want to work with the President to restrain federal spending.

In one of our first acts in the new majority, House Republicans voted to cut Congress's own budget. And just today, the House voted to restore the spending discipline that Washington sorely needs.

The reason is simple.

A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it's imperative. Here's why.

We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.

On this current path, when my three children - who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old - are raising their own children, the federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay.

No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country.

Frankly, it's one of my greatest concerns as a parent - and I know many of you feel the same way.

Our debt is the product of acts by many presidents and many Congresses over many years. No one person or party is responsible for it.

There is no doubt the President came into office facing a severe fiscal and economic situation.

Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.

The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies - an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus.

All of this new government spending was sold as "investment." Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9% and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.

Then the President and his party made matters even worse, by creating a new open-ended health care entitlement.

What we already know about the President's health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.

Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama Administration for waivers from the mandates. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The President mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree - and we think his health care law would be a great place to start.

Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.

Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the President's law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy.

Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis.

We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it responsibly.

And that is exactly what Republicans pledge to do.

Americans are skeptical of both political parties, and that skepticism is justified - especially when it comes to spending. So hold all of us accountable.


In this very room, the House will produce, debate, and advance a budget. Last year - in an unprecedented failure - Congress chose not to pass, or even propose a budget. The spending spree continued unchecked.

We owe you a better choice and a different vision.

Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you - to show you how we intend to do things differently ... how we will cut spending to get the debt down... help create jobs and prosperity ... and reform government programs. If we act soon, and if we act responsibly, people in and near retirement will be protected.

These budget debates are not just about the programs of government; they're also about the purpose of government.

So I'd like to share with you the principles that guide us. They are anchored in the wisdom of the founders; in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; and in the words of the American Constitution.

They have to do with the importance of limited government; and with the blessing of self-government.

We believe government's role is both vital and limited - to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense ... to secure our borders ... to protect innocent life ... to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights ... to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity ... and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

We believe, as our founders did, that "the pursuit of happiness" depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.

Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn't do any of them very well. It's no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.

Whether sold as "stimulus" or repackaged as "investment," their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much.

And during the last two years, that is exactly what we have gotten - along with record deficits and debt - to the point where the President is now urging Congress to increase the debt limit.

We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.

Our nation is approaching a tipping point.

We are at a moment, where if government's growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America's best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness, and wise consumer choices has never worked - and it won't work now.

We need to chart a new course.

Speaking candidly, as one citizen to another: We still have time ... but not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be.

Just take a look at what's happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn't act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.

Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.

Some people will back away from this challenge. But I see this challenge as an opportunity to rebuild what Lincoln called the "central ideas" of the Republic.

We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative - not political clout - determines who succeeds.

Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise - but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals; because of poor decisions made in Washington and Wall Street that caused a financial crisis, squandered our savings, broke our trust, and crippled our economy.


Today, a similar kind of irresponsibility threatens not only our livelihoods but our way of life.

We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That's the real secret to job creation - not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.

Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.

These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The American story has been cherished, advanced, and defended over the centuries.

And it now falls to this generation to pass on to our children a nation that is stronger, more vibrant, more decent, and better than the one we inherited.

Thank you and good night.

Tea Party reaction to SOTU Address

The full text Rep. Michele Bachmann's response to Obama's State of the Union Address, delivered on behalf of the Tea Party.

As prepared for delivery:

Good evening, my name is Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota's 6th District.

Two years ago, when Barack Obama became our President, unemployment was 7.8 percent and our national debt stood at what seemed like a staggering $10.6 trillion dollars.

We wondered whether the President would cut spending, reduce the deficit and implement real job-creating policies.

Unfortunately, the President's strategy for recovery was to spend a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus program, fueled by borrowed money.

The White House promised us that all the spending would keep unemployment under 8 percent.

Not only did that plan fail to deliver, but within three months the national jobless rate spiked to 9.4 percent. And sadly, it hasn't been lower for 20 straight months. While the government grew, we lost more than 2 million jobs.

Let me show you a chart. [CHART]

Here are unemployment rates over the past ten years. In October 2001, our national unemployment rate was at 5.3 percent. In 2008 it was at 6.6 percent. But, just eight months after President Obama promised lower unemployment, that rate spiked to a staggering 10.1 percent.

Today, unemployment is at 9.4 percent with about 400,000 new claims every week.

After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the $410 billion spending bill with over 9,000 earmarks, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money we don't have.

But, instead of cutting, we saw an unprecedented explosion of government spending and debt, unlike anything we have seen in the history of our country.


Deficits were unacceptably high under President Bush, but they exploded under President Obama's direction, growing the national debt by an astounding $3.1 trillion-dollars.

What did we buy?

Instead of a leaner, smarter government, we bought a bureaucracy that tells us which light bulbs to buy, and which will put 16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama's healthcare bill.

ObamaCare mandates and penalties will force many job creators to stop offering health insurance altogether, unless yours is one of the more-than-222 privileged companies or unions that has received a government waiver.

In the end, unless we fully repeal ObamaCare, a nation that currently enjoys the world's best healthcare may be forced to rely on government-run coverage that will have a devastating impact on our national debt for generations to come.

For two years President Obama made promises just like the ones we heard him make tonight. Yet still we have high unemployment, devalued housing prices and the cost of gasoline is skyrocketing.

Here are a few suggestions for fixing our economy:

The President could stop the EPA from imposing a job-destroying cap-and-trade system.

The President could support a Balanced Budget Amendment.

The President could agree to an energy policy that increases American energy production and reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

The President could also turn back some of the 132 regulations put in place in the last two years, many of which will cost our economy $100 million or more.

And, the President should repeal ObamaCare and support free market solutions like medical malpractice reform and allow all Americans to buy any healthcare policy they like anywhere in the United States.

We need to start making things again in this country, and we can do that by reducing the tax and regulatory burdens on job creators.

America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Look no further to see why jobs are moving overseas.

But, thanks to you, there's reason to hope that real spending cuts are coming. Last November you went to the polls and voted out big-spending politicians and you put in their place men and women with a commitment to follow the Constitution and cut the size of government.

I believe that we are in the early days of a history-making turn.

Please know how important your calls, visits, and letters are to the maintenance of our liberties. Because of you, Congress responded and we are starting to undo the damage that's been done.

We believe in lower taxes, a limited view of government and the exceptionalism of America. And I believe America is the indispensible nation.

Just the creation of this nation was a miracle. Who's to say that we can't see a miracle again?

The perilous battle that was fought in the pacific, at Iwo Jima, was a battle against all odds, and yet the image of the young G.I.s in the incursion against the Japanese immortalizes their victory. These six young men raising the flag came to symbolize all of America coming together to beat back a totalitarian aggressor.

Our current debt crisis we face today is different, but we still need all of us to pull together. We can do this.

And that's the hope we hold tonight as Americans. We will push forward to reclaim the greatness of our country and to proclaim the liberty upon which we were founded.

And we will do so because we the people will never give up on this great nation.

God bless you, and God bless America.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Christian communities in Middle East will ‘die out’

Experts say Christian communities in Middle East will ‘die out’ unless urgent action taken.

With attacks against Christians on the rise in majority-Muslim nations in the Middle East, experts say the future of Christianity in the region is gravely threatened.

From the most restrictive countries to the more open ones, Christians are facing an uphill battle for survival in a majority of Middle Eastern countries. In the last ten years and especially in recent months, attacks against churches and Christian populations in Muslim lands have reached crisis proportions.

In almost every majority-Muslim nation in the Middle East the situation of Christians is worsening, according to Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute.

“You are seeing more of this violence across the board….You get governments which may be relatively secular, like Egypt. But the opposition is Islamist,” Marshall told The Daily Caller. “[Governments] want to look like they are defending Islam too. So [countries like] Egypt do not effectively protect its Christian communities.”

More substantial Christian communities, such as the Copts in Egypt, will likely have more of a chance for survival, Marshall said. Those countries in which Christians are already significantly out-numbered will likely see their Christian population vanish unless the violence against them is brought to an end.

“In a lot of the other countries [besides Egypt and Lebanon] where you have smaller [Christian] communities — Morocco, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran — at the moment, the fear is those communities will continue to diminish. It is parallel to Jews about fifty years ago,” said Marshall. “These communities are beginning to go and in a couple of decades, unless the situation changes, you’ll just have remnants of communities. They will die out.”

While avoiding Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” thesis, David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, said he believes Islamists see the fight against the West as also an opportunity to purify their lands of religious minorities — namely Jews and Christians.

“It’s not just about Jews or Israel. What’s unfolding is a struggle between the West — Israel and the United States, Jews and Christians — against this strand of militant Islam. We’re all in this together,” he said.

Marshall noted that the Islamists are not only trying to purify the region of Jews and Christians but all of the various religious minorities.

“We use these monolithic terms like Muslim and Arab and so we miss the minorities even though that part of the world has as many minorities as else where,” he said.

While Marshall said the decrease in tolerance for Christians and other religious minorities is not directly linked to American actions in the Middle East, he does believe that American actions are used as an excuse for attacking Christians who they identify as an appendage of the “Great Satan.”

“In terms of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, those are used by radical groups, terrorist groups, as justification for attacking Christians — eventhough the local Christians did not invade Iraq, they have been their for 2,000 years,” he said.

Brog told TheDC that unless governments step in there is little doubt that the presence of Christians in the region will dramatically taper off, leaving behind a negligible population.

“For every Christian killed, you’re going to see multiples fleeing for their lives. Thus I fear unless governments step up — particularly the governments of Iraq and Egypt — the violence will continue and the exodus will continue and we will see some of the oldest Christian communities on earth disappear,” Brog said.

Nina Shea, an international human-rights lawyer, concurrs.

“Unless something happens fast there is not going to be a future for Christianity in the Middle East,” she told TheDC.

But while governments may have a humanitarian obligation to step in, Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, told TheDC that Christian institutions that have shied away from the conflict in the past, such as the Vatican, would do well to step in.

“I think it is more a matter for Christian institutions, in particular the Vatican, which is always concerned that if it makes noise things will get even worse,” he said.

Pope Benedict XVI briefly touched on the issue in his yearly “State of the World” address last week. Benedict spoke about the intolerance toward Christians throughout the Middle East and the world — calling on those in power to act to help Christians fighting for survival.

”Looking to the east, the attacks which brought death, grief and dismay among the Christians of Iraq, even to the point of inducing them to leave the land where their families have lived for centuries, has troubled us deeply. To the authorities of that country and to the Muslim religious leaders, I renew my heartfelt appeal that their Christian fellow-citizens be able to live in security, continuing to contribute to the society in which they are fully members,” he said.

The fact that Christians are being forced out of Muslim lands at this moment in history is “particularly ironic,” according to Pipes.

“I think the future is bleak,” said Pipes, “and it comes at a particularly ironic moment when the Muslim populations, in the traditional Christian world, are burgeoning. It is not just in terms of numbers, but they are demanding rights [in the West] and so it is almost a mirror reflection of what is going on in traditional Muslim countries.”

Source: Daily Caller

Tucson Shooting Victim: 'There Would Be Torture and Then an Ear Necklace...'

James Eric Fuller, 63, who was shot in the knee, had told The Post on Friday, the day before his arrest, that top Republican figures should be tortured -- and their ears severed.

"There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center," Fuller said.

Also on Friday, Fuller stopped by the home of gunman Jared Lee Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive the shooter, The Associated Press said.

On Saturday, Fuller was carted away for a psychiatric exam after disrupting the town hall meeting by taking a photo of Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries and shouting, "You're dead!"

Source: Fox News

Rush Caller Goes Nuts over Limbaugh's Tone

Glenn Beck reveals his "darkest moments"

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obamacare targeted to get shot down in House.

WASHINGTON -- The new Republican-controlled House of Representatives is certain to vote Wednesday to repeal President Barack Obama's health care reform. The Democratic-controlled Senate is just as certain to let the measure die.

Republicans and Democrats adopted a more civil tone without angry shouts as they debated the repeal legislation on the House floor Tuesday just 10 days after the shooting rampage in Arizona that left a Democratic congresswoman wounded and lawmakers of both parties stunned.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat, said he expected that "members will heed their own advice and will address the issues in a way that will deal with them on the merits." In the past, he added, too much of the public debate was "about incitement rather than informing, about making people angry, disrespecting the ... point of view of the other side."

The House vote had been slated for last week as the Republicans' first order of business -- a campaign promise that helped them regain the majority in the lower chamber. But action was put off after the attack on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot through the head. She is hospitalized in serious condition but six others who attended her meeting with constituents in Tucson, Arizona, were killed. They include a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl.

Now, the House vote is back on after more than a week of national soul-searching and questions about whether the brutal tone of the political dialogue helped fuel the deadly attack in Arizona.

While most politicians agree that the heated rhetoric had gotten out of hand, little has changed in narrowing the deep partisan divide on such key issues as the health care reform legislation.

The measure that Obama signed into law last March extended health care coverage over a period of four years to 32 million Americans who now lack it, and reshaped the way most Americans receive and pay for medical treatment. The signing followed a year of intense political battles and marked a victory that eluded presidents stretching back almost half a century.

Obama said Tuesday that he is willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to improve the health care law but warned that lawmakers shouldn't "go backward" and repeal the measure.

In a statement, Obama said Americans deserve the freedom and security of knowing insurance companies can't deny, cap or drop their health care coverage when they need it most.

The House action to repeal the law is merely symbolic given that the Senate will not even take up the measure and that Obama is certain to veto it should it somehow pass through Congress. But it does signal the beginning of the Republican effort to chisel away at the law through attempts to deny funding for parts of the legislation as they go into effect in the coming years.

An Associated Press-GfK poll taken earlier this month finds Americans almost evenly divided on the law. The poll found that 40 percent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 percent oppose it. Strong opposition to the law stands at 30 percent, close to the lowest levels registered in AP-GfK surveys dating to September 2009.

As for repeal, only about one in four said they want to do away with the law completely. Among Republicans support for repeal has dropped sharply, from 61 percent after the elections to 49 percent now.

Dissatisfaction with the law stems in part from a powerful campaign by Republicans and the conservative tea party movement to portray it as further intrusion into citizens' private lives by the federal government. Some insisted the new legislation amounted to socialized medicine, even though parts of the law were lifted from a Republican plan drawn up in the 1990s.

In some extreme cases, opponents falsely claimed that the legislation would set up so-called government "death panels" to decide when to end treatment for elderly patients.

Others object to it on the basis that it's too expensive, especially given the spiraling U.S. deficit.

Now, Republicans are warning the health care reform law will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. Experts debunk that claim as a creative use of statistics from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

What the CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can move to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job. Under the previous system, most Americans got their health insurance through work.

The Obama administration released a study Tuesday saying repeal of the existing law could threaten between 50 million and 129 million nonelderly men, women and children with denial of affordable health insurance because they have pre-existing medical conditions. The administration built its estimate on changes in the law that already have taken effect or might take effect by 2014.

House Republicans issued a point-by-point rebuttal that said the administration's claim was vastly overstated and accused Democrats of "scare tactics."

Source: Fox News

Monday, January 17, 2011

New European Union school calendar omits Christian holidays

A 2011-2012 school calendar published by the European Union has omitted Christian holidays, while continuing to note important Jewish and Muslim celebrations.

The European Union has printed three million copies of the calendar which will be distributed free-of-charge to students who request them.

Former French politician and government minister, Christine Boutin, wrote in her blog Jan. 11 that the calendar leaves out Christianity, “the religion practiced or recognized as forming the cultural assembly of our ‘old’ continent.”

Boutin is a consultant for the Pontifical Council for the Family, as well as president of the Christian Democratic Party in France. She went on to lament that Christianity has “fallen into the limbo of collective ignorance.”

While Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter are missing from the calendar's pages, days commemorating “Sikh Baisakhi-Day, the Jewish Yom Kippur holiday, the Muslim holiday Aid-el-Kebir,” remain in place,” Boutin continued.

The Christian Democratic Party in France called the omissions “unacceptable” and has filed a petition asking that the calendars not be distributed as printed, but that students be given versions that include Christian holidays.

“The role of the Christian religion in the shaping of Europe is an undeniable historical fact” that the European Union cannot omit. To do so would be to “instruct students while denying that a particular religion has greatly contributed to the foundation and unity of Europe,” the organization said.

The petition states that the Christian religion is “the first of all religions in Europe. It is therefore unthinkable that it be denied, as it has great importance for the lives of all.”

For more information, visit:

Source: Catholic News Agency

Doubt Darwin!

Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one of the most dangerous ideas ever entertained by the Western World.

The idea that the universe, our world, and even life have arisen spontaneously out of nothing removes the need for a Creator. Without a Creator, then, there is no judge of what is right and what is wrong. Ultimately, man himself as the pinnacle of evolution can decide what is right in his own eyes. The Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, were staunch evolutionists and believed that one "race" of man was more superior than another. This lead to attrocities the world will never forget.

We wonder why we have an epidimic of drug use, school shootings, suicide, and depression among our youth. Could it be that they have been told they are nothing more than evolved pond scum with no real purpose in life?

We encourage you to visit our sister site,, to read the latest scientific evidence which supports the Bible's history of Creation.

The Left Continues to Falsely Link Conservatives to Loughner

On CNN's "Reliable Sources," Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank defended a recent column where he admitted even if there is no evidence that Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck inspired Jared Loughner to shoot Congresswoman Giffords, criticism of Palin and Beck is still deserved because "both are finally being held to account for recklessly playing with violent images in a way that is bound to incite the unstable."

Best Natonal Anthem Ever?

Jim Cornelison is so skilled at performing "The Star-Spangled Banner" before sporting events that the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks hired him to do it full-time. The Chicago Bears, knowing when they have a good thing in town, invited Cornelison to sing the national anthem before today's NFC divisional playoff game against the Seattle Seahawks. To say the least, he didn't disappoint:

Reince Priebus elected Republican National Committee chairman

Reince Prebus (left) and Michael Steele.

WASHINGTON – Wisconsin Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus was elected chair of the Republican National Committee on Friday, defeating four other candidates — including incumbent Michael Steele — in the seventh round of voting.

Priebus never trailed in the voting, slowly building on his tally until he surpassed a majority of the 168 voting members.

State party chair since 2007, Priebus helped Wisconsin Republicans win back the governor's office after eight years, unseat three-term Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, and pick up two congressional seats in 2010, success the party hopes he can replicate on a national scale.

"A state that was totally black and blue is now totally red," Wisconsin GOP committeeman Steve King said in a nominating speech.

His immediate task will be to shore up the finances of a party that, despite success at the ballot box, is deeply in debt heading into the 2012 presidential election cycle.

"I'm going to start working right now," Priebus said after securing victory.

Steele, the gaffe-prone former lieutenant governor of Maryland who was elected as chairman in January 2009, dropped out of contention after the fourth round of balloting.

"I think the party is ready for something different," an emotional Steele said as he addressed party stalwarts earlier at the Gaylord Hotel in National Harbor, Maryland. "At this time I will step aside for others to lead. But in so doing I hope you all appreciate the legacy we leave."

Priebus had actually helped Steele win two years ago, and worked closely with him during his term.

Steele failed to attract much support after his surprise decision last month to seek another term. A leading reason was enunciated as the meeting convened earlier, when the RNC's treasurer announced that the party remains more than $20 million in debt.

When he won the chairmanship, Steele represented a change that even party insiders wanted after eight years of President George W. Bush. Running as an outsider, he was elected days after President Obama took office. Supporters saw him as a charismatic speaker who could give the party a new, more diverse image.

But perceptions of Steele as an articulate messenger proved mistaken, as he stumbled into a series of verbal gaffes that never really ended. Last summer, his description of the conflict in Afghanistan as "a war of Obama's choosing" horrified Republicans who backed the effort and remembered its origins under Bush. He suggested last winter that Republicans would not succeed in taking over the House, a view that left many in the GOP fuming.

Management problems at party headquarters in Washington also drew increasing, and unwanted, attention. Steele's chief of staff and another aide were dismissed after nearly $2,000 in RNC money was spent at a sex-themed West Hollywood nightclub. A falloff in contributions from big donors gave critics another target.

Other candidates included Ann Wagner, a former national committee official and U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg under Bush; Maria Cino, a longtime Republican strategist; and Michigan committeeman Saul Anuzis.

Cino had the support of new House Speaker John Boehner, who held an event with RNC members to boost her bid Wednesday night.

As the new chairman, Priebus will be tasked with helping the party get back on secure financial ground and focusing its efforts on supporting the party's nominee in 2012, presumably against Obama.

Source: LA Times

Palin e-mail hacker starts prison term

A man who broke into Sarah Palin's e-mail has been imprisoned - despite being told he might be spared jail.

David Kernell, 23, was found guilty last year of illegally accessing Mrs Palin's e-mail during the 2008 presidential campaign.

At the time, a judge suggested he should serve his year-long sentence in a halfway house.

But after intervention from US government officials he is now in federal prison, the BBC has learned.

Officials confirmed that Mr Kernell reported on 10 January to begin serving his time at a federal corrections institute in Ashland, Kentucky.

That is not the situation that his friends and family were hoping for, however.

During a hearing in November, Judge Thomas Phillips indicated that Mr Kernell's sentence of one year and one day should be served at a halfway house to reflect the case's "unique circumstances".

"Even if the defendant serves his sentence at a halfway house, this combined with a criminal conviction is significant punishment," he said at the time, adding that it would mark "a sufficient restriction of the defendant's liberty".

The US Bureau of Prisons, however, has decided to make Mr Kernell serve out his term in the low-security prison camp nearly 300 miles from his home in Knoxville, Tennessee.

The move comes more than two years after the virtual break-in took place, at the height of the former Alaska governor's failed campaign to win the US vice presidency.

Using the online pseudonym "rubico", Mr Kernell - a student whose father is a senior Democrat politician in Tennessee - answered a series of security questions that gave him access to her private inbox, and then shared the details online.

A copy was retained by Wikileaks, the whistle-blowing website currently at the centre of a controversy over leaked US diplomatic cables, and details of her messages were published in several media outlets.

“The state gives power to the Bureau of Prisons to determine the nature of incarceration.” - Professor Robert Weisberg Stanford University

As a result, Ms Palin's family received abusive emails and phone calls. A subsequent FBI investigation led to Mr Kernell's arrest five days later.

Although he was eventually charged with four crimes - including identity theft and fraud - a court in Knoxville, Tennessee, only found him guilty of two lesser counts after a two-week trial last May.

The US Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would not comment on why Judge Phillips' recommendations had not been followed, but said decisions concerning inmates took into account a number of factors.

The BOP is not bound by judicial recommendations, one legal expert said federal sentencing was often "arbitrary".

"The judge can give either incarceration or probation, but if it's incarceration the state gives power to the Bureau of Prisons to determine the nature of incarceration," said Professor Robert Weisberg, director of the criminal justice center at Stanford University in California.

"There is not a general or uniform US rule," he added. "There is huge local variation."

Source: BBC News

Friday, January 14, 2011

Obama Wants Internet Users to Register With Feds

Federalized security screening at airports has been such a success that President Obama wants to apply the same government "expertise" to the realm of online commerce and commentary. The White House cybersecurity adviser joined Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Jan. 7 to announce what amounts to a national ID card for the Internet.

Their plan is straightforward. Instead of logging onto Facebook or one's bank using separate passwords established with each individual company or website, the White House will take the lead in developing what it calls an "identity ecosystem" that will centralize personal information and credentials. This government-approved system would issue a smart card or similar device that would confirm an individual's identity when making online credit-card purchases, accessing electronic health care records, posting "anonymous" blog entries or even logging onto one's own home computer, according to administration documents.

Officials insist this would be a voluntary program and deliver significant benefits to the public. Mr. Locke explained last week that "robust identity solutions can substantially enhance the trustworthiness of online transactions. They can not only improve security, but, if done properly, can enhance privacy as well."

Put another way, Mr. Locke is saying, "Trust us, we're from the government, and we're here to help." Congress, the technology industry and the public need to run as far away as they can from this purported assistance. The government is no more capable of securing information than it is of protecting airports. Just look at the WikiLeaks case, in which a disaffected private was able to grab hundreds of thousands of classified documents from U.S. Army computers. Agencies ranging from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to the Department of Veterans Affairs have proved equally incapable of dealing with personal data.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), for example, lost a hard drive crammed with material about the Clinton White House and its employees. The same agency sent a hard drive containing the Social Security numbers of about 75 million veterans to a private contractor for "recycling" without bothering to delete the personal information. To this day, the agency is unable to determine what happened to the device. "While each case of data breach, loss or undue risk of loss represents a unique stanza, the chorus of the song remains the same," Paul Brachfeld, NARA's inspector general, said in a 2009 congressional hearing. "Internal control weaknesses, lapses and exercises of questionable judgment tied to other incidents I have spoken of today regularly leave me and my staff frustrated and bewildered."

There's little reason to think Mr. Brachfeld's frustration will ever be eased. Civil-service employees, who can't be fired, have little reason to be careful with sensitive medical records, or even nuclear secrets. A careless attitude pervades federal agencies, rendering the government particularly unsuited to the task of directing an identity-assurance program. Like most ideas dreamed up around a multiagency boardroom table, this one will never accomplish its stated goal.

Centralizing access to personal information only makes it easier for the bad guys because it means they only need to steal one key to unlock a vast wealth of financial and personal information. It's likely that the real motivation for this is to ensure the feds always have backdoor access into what people are doing in the online realm. Congress should take steps to ensure this Big Brother scheme is deleted.

(links to

Media Research Center Documents Liberal Death Wishes Against Conservatives

The Media Research Center released today a list of comments made by members of the media in recent years that call for the death or suffering of conservative leaders. These quotes are evidence of the double standard that certain media exercise in blaming conservatives for the shooting in Tucson, Ariz., while ignoring liberals’ death-wish-like rhetoric against conservatives, said the organization in a press release.

“The so-called ‘news’ media have zero currency in this debate because we have documented the Left using hateful, vicious language far worse than any conservative,” said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center (MRC), a conservative watchdog group. “Their attacks on conservatives are untrue and utterly hypocritical.”

“If they really cared about the effects of political rhetoric, they would have gone after any number of those left-wingers who have directly incited violence -- starting with the man with the world’s biggest audience: President Obama,” said Bozell. “After all, he did say, ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.’”

“But that would be a ridiculous charge,” he continued. “And besides, the media aren’t really concerned about violent rhetoric. This is part of a much more insidious and calculated campaign to criminalize conservative thought.”

“Next they will ramp up support to regulate free speech on radio airwaves and the like,” said Bozell. “They want to illegalize opposition to liberal thought and are willing to accuse, indict and prosecute anyone who stands in the way of that socialist goal.”

Founded in 1987, the MRC states that its mission is “to bring balance to the news media.”, launched in 1998, is a division of the MRC.

In its press release of today, the MRC presented numerous quotes from members of the media that either call for or express delight in the death of certain conservative leaders. Some of these quotes include the following:

“Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but we’ll be there to watch.” -- Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, Oct. 13, 2009.

“So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to -- or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” -- Montel Williams talking about Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Air America’s Montel Across America, Sept. 2, 2009.

“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country.... You know, Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” -- Ed Schultz, The Ed Schultz Show, May 11, 2009.

“I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” -- Radio host Mike Malloy on the Jan. 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show.

“I’m just saying if he [Dick Cheney] did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” -- Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, Mar. 2, 2007,

After then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) said that the federal government was spending too much money on AIDS, National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg, on the July 8, 1995 edition of Inside Washington, said, “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

On the Nov. 4, 1994 edition of PBS’s To the Contrary, then-USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux said of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”


Half of All States Now Suing to Stop Obamacare

If it is allowed to be implemented, Obamacare will eventually do deep and irreparable harm to our nation’s budget deficit [2]. But while Obamacare is more of a long-term threat to fiscal health at the federal level, it is a clear and present danger [3] to the states. Of the 34 million Americans who gain health insurance through Obamacare, over half [4] (18 million) will receive it through Medicaid.

While Obamacare will pay for all of the benefit expansion for the first three years of the law, and 90% of it after that, Obamacare never pays for any of the state administrative costs for adding those 18 million Americans [5] to their welfare rolls. That amounts to billions [6] in unfunded federal mandates for states to absorb. That is why 33 Republican governors signed a letter [7] to the White House and Congress making an emphatic appeal that Obamacare’s Medicaid provisions be repealed.

It is also why the newly elected governors of Ohio, Oklahoma, Maine, and Wisconsin have all decided to sue the Obama administration in hopes of stopping Obamacare. Specifically, Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma has announced [8] that the Sooner State will pursue its own case against the law, while Govs. John Kasich (R) and Scott Walker (R) (of Ohio [9] and Wisconsin [10] respectively) will add their states to Florida’s multi-state suit. And yesterday, newly sworn-in state Attorney General William Schneider announced [11] Maine would also join the the Florida litigation. That brings the number of states on the Florida suit to 23 and the total number of states suing to stop Obamacare (which includes Virginia and Oklahoma) to 25.

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] Image:

[2] Obamacare will eventually do deep and irreparable harm to our nation’s budget deficit:

[3] clear and present danger:

[4] over half:

[5] 18 million Americans:

[6] billions:

[7] letter:

[8] announced:

[9] Ohio:

[10] Wisconsin:

[11] announced:

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Glenn Beck's Pledge for the American people, politicians, and media

While Americans are grappling to understand the Arizona tragedy, the absolute vacuum of leadership on both sides is staggering.

We live in a country that has been struck by John Hinckley Jr. and Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman. And one that’s been hit by terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, the DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad, the Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan, and 19 highjackers all claiming to be freedom fighters. You’d think we’d understand the difference between madmen and terrorists.

All evidence points to the fact that the assailant from this weekend was severely mentally disturbed. His belief system was not rational by any modern political standard. He was an atheist, believed George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11, feared a global currency, cited the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books and thought the Mars rover landing was staged. These are not the opinions of a coherent individual.

Far too often, we have seen in our schools and in our post offices, acts of violence from misfits of society. While we can look for the warning signs, these horrific events will always be with every nation.

Though violence is a human problem, every American citizen can make a personal choice today. Do you believe that Americans, from any walk of life, can convince themselves they are freedom fighters and carry out acts of violence? My answer is yes. If you agree then you must take a clear stand.

Turning these horrific events into an opportunity for a political attack is a very childish response to a very grown-up problem. This is not about winning a political blame game. Atheists are not to blame. Those who hate George W. Bush are not to blame. Those who don’t believe in space travel are not to blame. Jared Lee Loughner is to blame. Period.

This tragedy should not be used as an opportunity to try and bend reality to retroactively place a madman on the other side of the aisle. It should be a time to pray for the victims and their families, a time that we can all come together and state that violence is off limits for all sides in a Republic. It’s a time for us to state with a unified passion that we won’t accept anyone who threatens or actually carries out violence.

Denouncing violence from all sides including your own does not make your movement any less just. To quote Martin Luther King:

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

I challenge all Americans, left or right, regardless if you’re a politician, pundit, painter, priest, parishioner, poet or porn star to agree with all of the following.

* I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.
* I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country.
* I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be.
* I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system.
* I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system – regardless of their underlying ideology – whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven.
* I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence. I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen.
* I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.

I will stand with anyone willing to sign that pledge. Today I make a personal choice. I urge leaders of both sides and all walks of life to join me as all Americans joined hands on 9.12.2001.

I believe that we must change ourselves to hold on to our republic. That’s why I have been talking about e4. Enlightenment. Education. Empowerment. Entrepreneurship. It’s a personal solution for all of us to become the people we were born to be, not the people we’ve allowed ourselves to become. I have called for a personal revolution; change ourselves in order to change the world. Those who live with honor and are responsible to themselves and their families will be the key to the future of our Republic, not those playing political games.

While everyone seems to be focused on politics, I instead choose to focus on Christina Green, the nine year old victim killed Saturday. Born on 9.11.2001, she is now a victim of another case of horrific violence. I hope we can all remember Christina by acting the way we did when she was one day old: To focus on values and principles, to use common sense and stop playing politics.

(links to

Video: Shooter a nonpartisan nutcase, says friend

ABC’s Good Morning America tracked down a close high-school friend Jared Lee Loughner had to find out more about the motives behind the attack that left six dead and fourteen wounded in Tucson this weekend, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl who loved politics. Zach Osler explains that Loughner didn’t have a particular love or hate for politics, at least not in a partisan sense. Contrary to assumptions made by the media and the Pima County sheriff, Osler says the shooter didn’t watch the news or listen to talk radio, and was neither Right nor Left. He was simply disturbed

Osler blames a film called “Zeitgeist” for Loughner’s state of mind, but that’s just as misdirected as blaming Sarah Palin, music, Tea Parties, The Communist Manifesto, or video games. Sane minds can handle exposure to all of these things, good or bad. The insane will adopt obsessions where they find them, which is the point many of us have been making since discovering Loughner’s disturbed and lunatic rants on the Internet. Even if he had listened to talk radio or actually read The Communist Manifesto, neither would have “caused” or “provoked” the shooting. It’s the lunacy that matters, not the reading list.

But at least we can say with some degree of certainty that a certain law enforcement official should concentrate more on his job than his politics, and that the media would do better to wait for evidence before reaching conclusions. As suspected, Loughner was neither a righty nor a lefty, but an “outie” — from outer space.

(links to

Poll: 57% of Americans don’t buy media spin on Tucson massacre

CBS polled almost 700 adults in the wake of the mass murder in Tucson committed by Jared Lee Loughner to determine whether the media spin that the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the murders of six others was a political act had resonated with the public. Perhaps surprisingly, the spin machine seems to have failed. A majority of 57% say that politics had nothing to do with the shooting, and even a plurality of 49% of Democrats agree (via Dan Spencer):

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country’s heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn’t connecting the shooting to politics.

It seems that the public has been able to separate the spin from the actual facts, which show that Loughner was a loon acting out of insanity and a personal grudge against Giffords, one completely of his own making. The publicity-hound sheriff who’s supposed to be leading the investigation may want to get around to, you know, looking at the evidence, as the feds apparently have done:

There’s mounting evidence that the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wasn’t a political act but a plan by a disturbed high school dropout who had few friends and no clear agenda. …

Instead, Loughner may have had some self-generated dislike of Giffords that stemmed from when he first spoke to her at an event in 2007.

Court filings indicate the FBI seized papers from his home Saturday that talked of planning an assassination of Giffords and also included a letter she sent him four years ago thanking him for attending the event.

One Loughner friend, Bryce Tierney, told Mother Jones magazine that Loughner had harbored a grudge against Giffords for more than a year, and that he considered her a “fake.”

Getting back to the poll, it seems as though the media spin of the first 48 hours failed to even convince the predisposed. Only 42% of Democrats in the survey believed that the shootings were a political act, and independents broke out at about the same ratio as the overall sample, 56/33. That is very good news for America, and bad news for those in the media and in Congress who hoped to leverage the shooting to pass gun-control and speech-control legislation and bully grassroots conservatives into silence.

(links to

Tucson Memorial? More like Obama Campaign Rally - Complete with free t-shirts! I kid you not!

Tucson Memorial? More like Obama Campaign Rally - Complete with free t-shirts! I kid you not!
At times the Tucson Memorial, unfortunately, looked and sounded more like a campaign pep rally. Very often throughout the memorial there were whoops and hollars, along with loud applause and whistling, not just during the president's speech, but for other speakers, including members of the Obama administration.

T-shirts Handed Out at Tucson Memorial
Some conservatives are upset over t-shirts bearing the logo "Together We Thrive: Tucson & America" that were handed out to attendees at tonight's memorial service in the McKale Center on the campus of the University Of Arizona here.

The shirts, which bear the same logo that adorns other items from the event -- including press passes, signage and volunteer t-shirts -- were placed on many of the seats in the lower sections of the arena when tonight's capacity crowd walked in.

This is a Memorial for the Dead done Obama Style! What a disgusting exhibition!

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

As Gun Ownership Climbs, Crime Continues to Decrease

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has released crime report data(1) for the first half of 2010 indicating a 6.2 percent drop in violent crime across the nation.

Though the FBI report does not give reasons for the drop in crime, many researchers have attributed it to everything from an aging population to stepped-up law enforcement(2). Conspicuously absent from the list of attributions, however, is the continued rise in firearm ownership by law-abiding Americans over the last two years — most notably following the Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court rulings that reaffirmed the right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.

The FBI statistics undermine a favorite argument of anti-gun groups and some mainstream media that “more guns equal more crime.” This is especially true when you consider that the decrease in violent crime for the first half of 2010 follows a 5.3 percent decrease in violent crime from the previous year.



Original source:

Palin Criticizes Manufacturers of 'Blood Libel' as Proponents of Speech Limits Cite Sharron Angle

Sarah Palin made a call to conscious Wednesday for those who would manufacture "a blood libel" for last weekend's Arizona shooting, saying "acts of monstrous brutality ... begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively" with Americans exercising their constitutional freedoms.

The former Republican vice-presidential candidate, the target of many pontificators ascribing motive to gunman Jared Lee Loughner, charged in the Tucson attack that killed six and injured 14 others, had been silent since shortly after the Saturday shooting when she issued a two-line statement offering her prayers for the families and victims.

But Palin's name -- and those of others, including Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle -- had been central in the early accusations over what spurred the shooting. Liberal media pundits assigned blame by citing Palin's political action committee's website, which showed crosshairs on districts that it was targeting in the November midterm, including the district of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the believed target of the gunman who was wounded in the shooting.

Others said Angle's comments on the campaign trail also incited violence. The debate about heated political rhetoric ratcheted up so quickly and vigorously -- even before Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter -- some Democratic lawmakers called for curbs on free speech.

In a Facebook posting issued Wednesday morning, Palin lamented the "irresponsible statements" of those casting blame on political figures.

"If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," Palin said.

She added that claims that the political rhetoric is somehow more heated today than ever before seem unfounded, noting that "back in those 'calm days'" of the Republic, political differences were occasionally settled with "dueling pistols."

But even as Palin decried the accusations, some lawmakers said federal regulations are needed to stop heated speech.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., on Monday referenced a comment by Angle in calling for a change in the nation's political dialogue -- by will or by law.

"'Don't retreat, reload.' Someone in Nevada saying we may need to use Second Amendment remedies. There's only one way to read this," Slaughter said.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told Fox News that Angle "talked about people rising up and taking over the government by force, using their guns. She was very explicit."

Sherman said that even if language used by Angle and her supporters hadn't incited the shootings in Arizona, eventually it will lead to violence.

"I'm saying if you have a heart attack, stop smoking, not because nicotine may or may not have caused your last heart attack, you'll never know, but it's going to cause the next one," Sherman said. "And if we continue to bring into the mainstream and treat as civil those who call for violence and disruption and assassination and revolution and insurrection, then whether that caused what happened in Tucson or not, it will cause the next tragedy."

Angle defended herself in a statement released late Tuesday.

"Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people's constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant. The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger," Angle said.

"Finger-pointing toward political figures is an audience-rating game and contradicts the facts as they are known," Angle added. "I have consistently called for reasonable political dialogue on policy issues to encourage civil political education and debate. Inappropriately attributing blame of a singular tragedy to achieve a political agenda is contrary to civil discourse, and is a media ploy to which I refuse to belong."

In the wake of the shooting, the National Hispanic Media Coalition used the incident to reiterate its call for the FCC to update its definitions of hate speech in media. It also asked the FCC to "examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, and non-regulatory options for counteracting the violence that extreme rhetoric breeds."

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., said he has no knowledge about what motivated Loughner to attack Giffords and the others, but he still wants legislation that bans the use of certain imagery when talking about congressional targets.

"I want to eliminate what may have been," Brady told Fox News. "I'm not a psychologist ... All I'm saying is you can't put a bull's eye or a crosshair on a member of Congress."

And on Tuesday, Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., was quoted in the Oregon Statesman-Journal saying he blamed conservative media personalities like Fox News' Glenn Beck and radio host Rush Limbaugh.

"I hold them personally responsible. I don't know how they can sleep at night after this," Schrader said.

Loughner, the accused gunman with no discernible connection to American political discourse, has not stated why he allegedly shot 20 people in the assault at a Tucson Safeway grocery store. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the community college student who had been suspended last October had frequented gaming websites seeking answers to questions about why he couldn't find a job or get a girlfriend.

More than a decade ago, lawmakers like Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., warned that violence in movies and video games could cause violence in life. But graphic imagery and heated rhetoric moved to the political theater long before that.

Several recent examples have been offered from both sides of the aisle, including President Obama's quoting from the film "The Untouchables" in which appears the statement, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun."

And even before movie references, crosshairs and bull's eyes, "battlefields" were drawn across campaign and policy landscapes. President Lyndon Johnson's State of the Union speech called for a figurative "War on Poverty," a precursor to the Reagan administration's equally figurative "War on Drugs."

Slaughter said that while she's not up to speed on current regulations, the Federal Communications Commission should work to sanction broadcasts that could incite people to violence.

"No one owns the airwaves," Slaughter said. "They are owned by the people."

If lawmakers were to seek remedies to quiet distasteful discussion, the so-called Fairness Doctrine is at the top of lists inspiring supporters and alarming opponents.

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told National Public Radio said he "came up in a time that the Fairness Doctrine did not allow media outlets to say things about a candidate or a person in public office without giving that person equal time to respond. And I really believe that everybody needs to take a look at where we are pushing things, and may need to take a serious step back and evaluate what's going on here."

But not everyone may be on board with a hasty turn to bottling up dissenting voices. Delivering a speech Tuesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said media have the power to inspire, motivate and inform. "But they also have the power to inflame and incite. The seething rhetoric has gone too far."

However, Leahy added, "In a free society, the society that we Americans must always want our country to be, the government should not and must not restrain free expression."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., also suggested Tuesday in a speech at the Center for American Progress that the blame game has no winner.

"The big question wasn't whose rhetoric was right or wrong, but whether our political conversation was worthy of the confidence and trust of the American people," he said.


Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Lamestream Media Ties Shooting to Tea Party

“The shooter’s motivation is still unknown,” Katie Couric announced as she anchored Saturday’s CBS Evening News, but that didn’t deter CBS, nor CNN, NBC and ABC on Saturday night and into Sunday morning from forwarding attempts to blame Sarah Palin and, by implication, the Tea Party, for the Tucson shooting.

Read full story at