Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World

Eagle

Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Obama losing favor around the world—Jan. 15, 2010>>>Why is it that the true view of Resident Barack Obama (you know, the illegal alien living over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington) is openly expressed in the major media around the world, but nary a word of it is printed in any of the newspapers in the United States? Here is a political blog that appeared in the London Daily Telegraph on Sept. 18, 2009—some four months ago—and not a word of it was printed in any newspaper in the United States and, to my knowledge, no electronic media outlet in the US discussed Telegraph reporter Gerald Warner's comments. Increasingly, the red god of Islamic communism in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama is becoming more immune from scrutiny from the media out of fear of the race word. Whenever he is criticized for his unAmerican actions, his communist actions, or the out-and-out theft of the wealth of the American people, those who criticize him are accused of being racist. That's a First Amendment travesty.

Usually, in this section of Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World, I report a "blurb"of a mainstream media story and fill in the details. But, Gerald Warner's words bear listening to without editorialization

Barack Obama's chances of reelection in three and a half years' time may be evaporating at unprecedented speed, but his presidential ambitions could still be realized in another direction. He would be a shoo-in to win the next Russian presidential election..." (Sorry, I can't resist this since Obama is no more a natural citizen of Russia than he is of the United States, he might as well take his Indonesian passport and his MoveOn.org and ACORN vote thieves and run for President of the former Soviet Union which is being reformulated as we fail to watch.) ."...so high is his popularity now running in the land of the bear and the knout. Obama has done more to restore Russia's hegemonial potential in Eastern and Central Europe than even Vladimir Putin.

His latest achievement has been to restore the former satellite states to dependency on Moscow, by wimping out of the missile defense shield plan. This follows his surrender in July when he voluntarily sacrificed around a third of America's nuclear capability for no perceptible benefit beyond a grim smile from Putin. If there is one thing that fans the fires of aggression it is appeasement.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, 58 percent of Poles were in favor of the missile shield. But small nations must assess the political will of larger powers. Thanks to President Pantywaist's supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon for a rainy day. They have been here before. Poles remember how a leftist US President sold them out to Russia at Tehran and Yalta. The former Czechoslovakia was betrayed twice. In 1938 and 1945.

If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends. The satellites will pragmatically accept their restored subordination, without opening acknowledging it, and cooperate with their dangerous neighbor, ushering in a new generation of Finlandisation.

Bringing unstable states like Georgia into NATO would be a liability, not a defense. The crazy notion that a US-NATO-Russia combined defense policy has all the staying power of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Ronald Reagan, assisted by Margaret Thatcher, implemented the sensible principle that Russia, from the time of Peter-the-Great, respects only strength and steely political will. A pushover in the Oval Office is the best news Russian expansionists have heard since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Barack Obama is selling out America and, by extension, the entire West. This is a catastrophe for America and the wider world.

USA Today writes that most Americans favor a global warming treaty—Dec. 16, 2009 >>>Polls that offer multiple choices rather than simple "yes" or "no" answers are deceitful, because the pollster can mitigate the negatives by diluting them. With multiple answers to chose from, the pollster can then simply extrapolate only the data that reflects the view they want to project and ignore the balance.

You can't have a simple "yes" or "no" answer, claim that 55% of "those surveyed" endorse a binding accord to limit greenhouse gases with 38% of those polled opposing it and yet, by a lopsided 7 to 1 margin, find that the American people believe the highest priority of government should be fixing the economy and not selling out the American people to the socialist Europeans who have been trying to create world government since the failed League of Nations in 1920.

Further, those surveyed were theoretically evenly split on the economic impact of enacting new environmental laws. "Evenly split" to USA Today apparently means that that the 46% they reported as believing any new environmental laws will harm the country is no greater than the 36% they reported who think they will help the nation. Eighteen percent of those polled between Dec. 11 and Dec. 13 were apparently content to just wait and see just how much damage Barack Hussein Obama's latest watermelon scheme will do before complaining. Which, of course is like closing the barn door after the livestock's scattered all over the countryside. (And by the way, the term "watermelon" is not a food reference noun, but an adjective that describes people or causes which are environmentally green on the outside and communist red on the inside.) Several bloggers who actually got their hands on the poll questions and the percentage of replies found the percentages appear to be skewered by USA Today. When they asked : "Which do you think should be a higher priority for the Obama Administration right now?" 85%, not 46%, of those asked actually said improving the economy should be job one for the Administration. Only 12% (the idiot class which does not realize the world is cooling, not warming) said reducing global warming should be the highest priority. (Can we assume that all of those who responded by saying they think fixing a nonexistent problem are government employees, leftwing ideologues, members of ACORN or SEIU agitators?)

Oh wait...here are the poll demographics. The USA Today/Gallup Poll surveyed 1,025 people out of a universe of 303,000,000 people. In reality, since roughly 8% of those "polled" had no opinion, this was actually a poll of 938 people. The pollsters claim the survey had a +/-4% margin or error. But we can see from the blogsphere that sometimes the media tends to report what makes the political slant of their article work best for them. Apparently USA Today wanted to support the liars, thieves, criminals and corrupt politicians who brought their phony global warming dog and pony shows to Copenhagen, Denmark—and, of course the entourage of idiot far left Tinseltown clowns who tag along after them believing that curbing carbon dioxide will save the planet when all it will do is curb the production of the air we breathe and the water we drink. Eliminate water and oxygen (which eliminating carbon dioxide will do), and the globalists will get another wish: cutting the world's population down from 7 billion to 500 million very quickly.

After reading Chris Grygiel's blog on Seattle-pi Blogs yesterday afternoon, I did my own poll at Walmart and Kohl's Department Store last evening. (I wanted to make sure I was gauging all representative incomes classes in my community but deliberately choose not to survey the crowd at our local McDonald's or the illegals standing around outside our local 7-Eleven.) I guess that means my scientific poll isn't accurate within a +/- 4%) Those I polled who looked like they might be 18 to 20, for the most part didn't even know there was a global warming conference going on in Copenhagen—and about 20% of them didn't know where Copenhagen was. (We'll call them the "undecided.") Those who appeared to 20 to 29 weren't really concerned about whether we were experiencing global warming or global cooling. By a vote of 100% to 0%, they wanted the idiots in Washington to fix the economy—and keep their hands out of their pockets. Those who appeared to 55 to 65 or older (some people hide their ages well, others looked old from puberty), largely knew global warming was a myth and thought everyone who attended the Copenhagen conference should [a] be charged with attempted robbery or [b] denied re-entry into the United States. And, if you haven't guessed it, they voted 100% to 0% for someone to fix the economy. About a third of them wanted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid fired...and jailed. And, this is rock solid Democratic State which, by the way, is the nation's second largest producer of coal. Oh yes, one other thing...almost half of those I spoke with admitted they voted for Obama. God loves a repentant sinner.

Huckabee political career ends with murder of 4 Tacoma-area cops—Dec. 3, 2009 >>>The manhunt for cop-killer Maurice Clemons ended in a hail of gunfire after a two days manhunt when a Seattle cop, checking on a stolen car in South Seattle, shot and killed the cop killer. Clemons ended the lives of four of Lakewood, Washington's finest while they sipped coffee at the Forza Coffee Shop while receiving a pre-shift briefing over their laptop early Sunday morning, Nov. 29. The tragedy which ended the lives of Officers Tina Griswold, Ronald Owens, and Greg Richards and Sgt. Mark Renninger also rightly ended the political career of political chameleon and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who, as the governor of Arkansas, always talked conservative as he governed like a southern liberal. I expect as the families of the four assassinated police officers received the news no loved one ever wants to hear, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, known to Arkansas prosecutors as the "clemency governor," had a real sick feeling in the pit of his stomach when he learned that a violent criminal who had been serving a 108-year prison sentence when he granted clemency and put a dangerous felon back on the street, had just ambushed and murdered four police officers. Visions of Willie Horton had to be floating through Huckabee's mind as he remembered the fate of Massachusetts Gov. Michale Dukakis. In Dukakis' case, he furloughed a convicted murderer for a weekend. The convict, Horton, raped a murdered a woman before returning to prison.

The slain officers were all wearing bulletproof vests when Clemons approached them from behind and opened fire. One of the officers managed to unholster his weapon and returned fire before collapsing. It was believed by other customers in the coffee shop that Clemons was hit by the return fire from the officer.

Police said Clemons was returning to the parked stolen car, whose hood was raised and the engine, which had been hot-wired, was running. A lone Seattle officer had stopped to check out the car when he spotted and instantly recognized Clemons from the bolo which had been posted two days earlier, as he approached the vehicle. The officer ordered Clemons to stop and show his hands. When Clemons bolted, the officer fired several rounds, taking Clemons down. He was alive at the scene but died in custody a short time later. Had Huckabee not commuted his sentence, the earliest he would have been eligible for parole would have been 2021. However, with his well-documented hatred of law enforcement officers, its not likely Clemons would ever have been paroled. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher was conned by a jail house minister who convinced Huckabee that Clemons had "found Jesus," and was a changed man who no longer posed a threat to society.

Huckabee tried to redeem himself by appearing on the O'Reilly Factor, admitting that he made a mistake by granting clemency to Clemons and telling host Bill O'Reilly that the commutation was "...not something I'm happy about." Patronizingly, O'Reilly replied, "It's not your fault. I'm not saying its your fault. I don't think anybody watching thinks it's your fault." Wrong! It was Huckabee's fault. Entirely. Huckabee insisted the parole board never told him Clemons was a dangerous, anti-cop felon. But, Huckabee, the all-powerful governor, never asked. He didn't have to. He had the power in his pen to play God, and he did. On Wed., Nov. 2, Huckabee defended his decision to commute Clemon's sentence, saying "If I had the same information in front of me tonight that I did 9 years ago in a case exactly the same, I would make the same decision." Think about putting this man in the White House with a clemency pen that impacts convicts in 50 States. It appears all a convict has to do to catch Huckanee's ear is shout: "Hallelujah! I've been saved!" and they get out of prison.

And not just Clemons. During his 10.5 years as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee granted clemency to 1,103 guests of the State's penal system. Among them were 163 hard core criminals who received early releases from prison. Twelve of those were convicted murderers who should have served every day of their sentences. Among the re-offenders were Wayne Drummond who was convicted for the rape of a teenage girl. Released from prison by Huckabee, he moved to Missouri where he raped another woman and killed her. Convicted in Missouri, Drummond died in prison at age 55. Huckabee blamed Drummond's release on the parole board. Parole board member Ernest Pondexter told the media that Huckabee pressured him to release Drummond.

Here's just a few of Huckabee's early releases: John Henry Clairborne: sentenced to 100 years for robbing two elderly people at gunpoint. Elizabeth Diane Hager: convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of her husband. Wade Stewart: sentenced to life for murder. Denver Witham: beat a man to death with a lead pipe. In at least two instances, State prosecutors successfully sued Huckabee's attempt to free violent men. In one instance, Glen Martin Green beat an 18-year old pregnant woman with martial arts sticks and raped her as she was dying. Not dying fast enough to suit him, Green dumped her body out of the car and repeatedly ran over her. A pastor friend of Huckabee's convinced him that Green had found God and did not mean to kill the woman. Don Jeffers pleaded guilty to first degree murder for a 1980 killing and was sentenced to life in prison. In 2004 Huckabee issued a clemency order making Jeffers eligible for immediate parole. The prosecutor sued Huckabee. A State court judge vacated the clemency order.

Dianne Feinstein wants idiot California laws extended to the nation—Nov. 20 , 2009 >>>The Washington Times reported on Friday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] is urging the Obama Administration to use the rule-making provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency to force the electronics industry to adopt new energy standards for high-definition televisions up to 58". If Feinstein gets her way, Super Bowl fans everywhere in 2011 are going to be paying ACORN workers to go to California in 2012 and vote against Feinstein.

I expect when the regulation goes into effect in Sodom on the Pacific and Super Bowl watchers are forced to watch the biggest sports event of the year on their brand new grainy, 58" TV lit up with about as much voltage that power their microwave oven, there won't be a male anywhere in the State of California that will vote for Feinstein when she comes up for reelection in 2012. Because, by that time, she will be blamed for a decision made by the California Energy Commission—which believes that doubling the cost of television sets in 2011 will somehow make consumers happy because they may save a couple bucks a month on their electric bills as the lawmakers voted in favor of Cap and Trade legislation that will more than double or perhaps triple your electric bills.

The regulations, which were approved by the California Energy Commission, go into effect on Jan. 1, 2011—just in time to mess with the minds and eye sockets of those watching Super Bowl XLV at the Dallas Cowboy's new stadium in Arlington, TX on Feb. 6, 2011. More stringent rules will take effect on Jan. 1, 2013 when TVs must reduce their power consumption by 50%. Give the idiots in California enough time and they'll require TVs to be powered by solar panels with prime time programming taking place in the afternoon, or by wind power, which will allow you to watch prime time during prime time.

The California regulation came from the logic of Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld, a nuclear physicist and UC-Berkeley professor who observed that when the sale of flat-screen TVs began to skyrocket earlier this decade, TV-related power usage spiraled to 10 billion kilowatt-hours per year. That represented a 10% increase in power in a decade—about the same rate as the illegal alien population growth in California. It had nothing to do with increased usage of flat screen TVs. I suspect it has to do with California's welcome mat for illegal aliens and perhaps creating a money pool to fund the electric bills for illegals so they can watch their own flat screen TVs.

The California regulation was extrapolated from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [HR 6] that was signed into law by Bush-43 on Dec. 14, 2007, and implemented by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman on Jan. 13, 2009. The purpose of the regulation was to establish minimum efficiency standards for household appliances and commercial appliances, and require old State, county and municipal codes to be updated to meet the new standards. While the bureaucrats in Washington, California and everywhere else apparently can't tell the difference between a toaster, a coffee pot, a microwave oven, or a refrigerator compared to a DvD player or a television set, the American consumers understand that small appliances are things like toasters and coffee pots and major appliances are things like stoves, refrigerators and dishwashers and, by association, the white porcelain things in the bathroom. TVs are part of a retail category called electronics. Now, if you live in a one room apartment where appliances and electronics sit side-by-side you might get confused.

In a letter to Obama Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, Feinstein suggested that since Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Congress authorized his department to establish energy standards for household appliances but they neglected to regulate energy standards for TV sets. Referring to Rosenfeld's assessment that while energy-consumption had decreased on traditional appliances (which electronic devises are not) it increased on TV-sets, Feinstein suggested that Chu adopt the California standards nationwide. How would he—or anyone—know how much electricity you use to power your TV and how much you use for everything else? His assessment was based solely on the total increased electrical use in California throughout a decade when over 15 million aliens crossed the border at night and climbed the nonexistent security fence that bars illegals from establishing illegal residency in the United States. Now Feinstein wants Stephen Chu to implement a regulation that will greatly increase the cost of your next new flat screen TV. Oh, did I tell you that Feinstein runs for reelection in 2012? If you don't live in California please get a PO Box and establish residency there so you can vote her out of office in 2012. By the way, if you get that PO Box in San Francisco, you can knock out both Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi. I call it "Reverse ACORN."

Rachael Adds a Ray of Sunshine In Ohio—Nov. 13 , 2009 >>>On November 9, 2009, Food Network "30-Minute Meals" star Rachel Ray who also hosts a network program, The Rachael Ray Show was doing a 20 city tour in 10 days for her network show to look at the impact the recession is having on common, home town folk in Americana. According to an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati native Nick Lachey, her sidekick on the tour, told her about the town of Wilmington, Ohio that was really hard hit by joblessness. Wilmington has 15% unemployment, exceeding the Obama Administration's spin that unemployment standings at 10.2% based on the number of people who have applied for, or are receiving, unemployment checks. Economists who look not only at those statistics but also those people whose benefits have run out, and those who have given up the search for jobs that simply don't exist, place the national unemployment rate today at 22%.

All of America is hurting. Except, the bankers, unless you consider the income caps the Obama "rich-guy" czar wants to put on their multi-million dollar annual incomes. Then, of course, they're hurting, too. (While I don't like the disparity between what an hourly or salaried worker earns today compared to what his company's top executives make, I will state categorically that government does not possess the constitutional authority to limit wages...nor does it have a constitutional right to require employers to pay employees a "minimum" wage. But, that's a discussion for another day.)

Today I want to applaud a young lady whose show you couldn't pay me to watch yesterday: Rachel Ray. Today, she could actually make a fan out of me. I may even feel obligated to watch her Food Network program the next time it runs. Can't say I will watch her network show because there's just so much of ABC, CBS and NBC anyone can take in one sitting. My network TV is limited to: House (Fox TV. Monday), NCIS (CBS, Tuesday), Criminal Minds (CBS, Wednesday); temporary viewing: Survivor (CBS, Thursday) and Numbers (CBS, Friday). Saturday and Sunday, no network viewing at all. I watch a total of 5 hours of network TV viewing each week. Period. I wonder when someone's going to get smart enough to create an earth station network and retrieve only the top hit shows of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and format them as they ran in the 50s, 60s and 70s, including iconic programs like Ed Sullivan, Have Gun Will Travel, Route 66, or any of the top rated programs that don't run 39 times a day on TV-Land, TBS, Nickelodeon or Warner. But, that's also another topic for another day.

Ray and Lachey made a stop in Wilmington and found Allen Willougby, the Director of Your Father's Kitchen, the local soup kitchen. When things get rough in any town, things tighten up first at the local charities because the adage, "charity begins at home," is true. When discretionary income dries up so does charitable giving. And, Your Father's Kitchen showed the wear and tear of hard times. She told Willoughby she had a surprise for him at the soup kitchen. "If you go out in your kitchen right now," she said, "Carter Oosterhouse..." (who builds Rachael Ray's sets) "...is out there and he wants to redo our kitchen." Over nine days, Oosterhouse and his crew rebuilt Your Father's Kitchen, installing new shelves—and new appliances—and a larger dining area to accommodate more people. In the meantime, Rachael moved the soup kitchen to a local church. Then using her contacts through The Rachel Ray Show, the 30-Minute Meal Food Network star arranged with Sara Lee to provide Your Father's Kitchen with food for the next year. Beaming, Willoughby told the media that Sara Lee would be providing "...their pies and their breads and bakery goods and meats." Rachael Ray's visit to Your Father's Kitchen will be featured on the Rachael RayShow on Nov. 25, 2009. And, like I said, I'm not a fan...but I will be watching that program—even though it's network TV..

Local Hispanic Leaders Boycott Anglo Businesses—Aug 12 , 2009 >>>On November 17, 2009 I received this news clipping from a newspaper publisher friend. Every now and then the idiots on the far left do things that prove just how really stupid they are. With 65% of the American people wanting the illegal Hispanics in this country to go back where they came from, the Hispanics, who have apparently spent too much time reading English language liberal newspapers or Hispanic liberal newspaper in an around Victoria, Texas decided they needed to teach the Anglos a lesson by boycotting their businesses. The Mexicans felt with the recession caused by the Bush-43 recession bankrupting Victoria, this was the right time to show the Anglos just how much the Americans needed the business brought into their establishments by the Hispanic residents of Victoria.

The brief new snippet began: "Victoria, Texas is a town about 60 miles west of Houston. Local Hispanic leaders there, in opposition to pending Immigration legislation, boycotted all Caucasian-owned businesses last month as a demonstration of their economic impact on the community. The boycott was declared a success by the Hispanic community, noting revenue in Caucasian-owned businesses was down by 19%. Business owners declared the boycott a success as well, pointing out that shoplifting was reduced by 77%, money orders sent out of the country were down by 97%, and the cost of daily cleanup and trash collection was down by 84%. Shoppers reported they could actually hear English being poken throughout the community for the first time in recent memory; and customers paid for purchases with real money and not government debit cards or food stamps."

Is Obama now going to "save" the media?—Sept. 26, 2009 >>>On Monday, Aug. 17, 2009 one of America's premiere family magazines, The Readers' Digest, which published its first issue 87 years ago in February, 1922 by DeWitt and Lila Bell Wallace, announced it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The CEO of Readers' Digest, Mary Berner, said the company would seek bankruptcy protection for its US operations. Cash-starved from declining advertising revenues and circulation like most of the 4th estate, Readers' Digest embarked on a wrongly thought out plan to remake itself in a watermelon world that wants to save trees and get its information free on the Internet.

Readers' Digest is the largest circulation magazine in the United States with a monthly circulation of 5.5 million copies in the United States. The magazine is printed in braille for the blind, in large print for the nearly blind, and also has a audio edition for commuters and other travelers. Worldwide, the magazine reaches over 20 million homes in the Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Boznia, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Herzegovina, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea. Southeast Asia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the Ukraine as well as a Islamic version that began in Egypt in the 1960s. It can honestly be said that Readers' Digest was the only US magazine literally read around the world.

Readers' Digest's problems stemmed from Ripplewood Holding's buyout of the iconic family magazine in 2007. Ripplewood Holdings, LLC, which specializes in leverage buyouts, is a private equity and venture capital firm located at 1 Rockefeller Plaza. (Financial Times of London reported that Ripplewood was the venture capital company that put together the GM and Chrysler "buy-ins" by the Obama Administration.)

Ripplewood's ability to grab Readers' Digest resulted in a format facelift and a content change in the publication a few years ago that the American consumers simply didn't like. A decade ago the US circulation of Readers' Digest was 18 million. Now its 5.5 million. The supermarket checkout magazine racks which displayed Readers' Digest were crammed with product that sold out. Everyone read the Digest. Now, you'll find three or four magazines per rack gathering dust until they are replaced with the next issue. Circulation is down, which means advertising revenue is down. Add to that problem, Ripplewood's buying Readers' Digest with $2.8 billion in borrowed money was problematic because the magazine was already carrying too much debt. Compound that problem with the mortal sin of all mortal sins committed by most buyout companies that buy products because they are successful—and then immediately destroy them by changing what made them successful.

The editorial formula that made Readers' Digest the nation's hands-down favorite magazine for over 75 years came from purchasing, editing, condensing and reprinting popular or important articles from other periodicals. The marketing concept was so popular that Readers' Digest created a second revenue stream condensing the nation's best-selling novels. They even condensed the Bible to the ire of fundamental Christianity.

Readers' Digest editors would take up to five thousand word articles from the leading periodicals or feature articles from newspapers and condense them down to two or three pages. The articles generally dealt with subject matter dealing with food, nutrition, dieting or some other aspect of healthy living. Those articles would be mixed with a human interest story or two. And, of course, "The Most Unforgettable Character I Ever Met"—always my favorite first read. There would also be an occasional original piece written by Readers' Digest staff writers, or those under contract to the magazine and, of course, the humor for which the Digest paid $25 to $100. When Ripplewood took over, they changed the magazine from a popular general interest magazine that could be found in the porcelain libraries of most family homes into a self-help magazine read only by those interested in the cover topic-of-the-month. When Ripplewood files for bankruptcy protection, it will surrender control of the magazine to the banks.

Yes, that's right—the same banks that are enjoying the windfalls from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 as the American taxpayers who were robbed by the US government are forced to foot the bill for the theft of the US economy by the communists running the Executive and Legislative branches of government. As you shrug your shoulders and dismiss this news blurb, remember this. The communist bureaucrats in the sociofascist Obama Administration now own 20% or more of all of those major banks they bailed out with your money. That means Uncle Sam will tacitly "own" Readers' Digest when it comes out of bankruptcy with its Chapter 11 protection guarantees in place. When you ponder that, contemplate this as well:

Pretty much ignored by the mainstream media has been a piece of legislation proffered in the US Senate on Tuesday, Mar. 24, 2009. Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD] introduced a piece of legislation known as the Newspaper Revitalization Act of 2009. This legislation, which currently lacks any cosponsors, will allow the government to bail out the fourth estate, allowing commercial newspapers to operate as non-profits "...for educational purposes under the US tax code, giving them the same status enjoyed by public broadcasting companies." According to a Cardin spokesman, under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues—including political campaigns. They just would not be able to endorse political candidates. The federal government has been trying to wrest the fourth estate away from the 1st Amendment by licensing newspapers as the New Dealers, who feared the free press, speedily enacted the Federal Communications Act on June 19, 1933 in an attempt to silence the media, or at least, to force them, out of fear of losing their license to operate, to print only the news the White House wanted to appear in print.

Cardin's office said his bill would preserve the independence of local and community newspapers which do not impact political public opinion. In a complete contradiction to what he said, Cardin's bill will actually not only revitalize the far left conglomerate newspapers like the nearly bankrupt New York Times, the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the bankrupt Boston Globe and Philadelphia Inquirer, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, but their tax-free status as a not-for-profit newspaper will make it extremely difficult for "for-profit" newspapers to financially compete with them. If ACORN is not completely defunded and its ringleaders locked up by the midterm election, and Congress does not revert back to the GOP, the left will speedily enact Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act of 2010, and Barack Hussein Obama's Raw Deal Congress will give the illegal alien in the White House what Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal Congress was afraid to give him—a multifaceted American version of Pravda with the news controlled by the White House. Should the federal government get editorial control over the major print media that will allows them to either censor what news appars in print, or simply blackouts what news the government thinks the people don't need to know. If that happens, expect Congress to move to with equal lightning speed to enact Sen. Jay Rockefeller's [D-WV] Cybersecurity Act (if they have not already done so). If he is successful, Obama will have effectively erased the 1st Amendment and silenced all cogent forms of protestm bringing about the final destruction of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the tattered remnant of liberty in the United States.

Michelle Obama wants to be the next Hillary—Sept. 19, 2009 >>>Hillary Clinton saw herself as the second most powerful politician in Washington, DC in January, 1993. In her mind, since she was co-equal with her husband (who just happened to be the President of the United States), she decided the First Lady of the United States was politically coequal as well—even though the voters do not elect the spouse of the chief executive. The First Lady is, and always has been...well, a wife. Throughout the history of the presidency, that has always been enough for the wives of the nation's leaders. Even Eleanor Roosevelt, the most aggressive First Lady until Clinton, knew her place and never crossed the line (even though Hillary Clinton fantasized a much more political role for Franklin D. Roosevelt's wife and fifth cousin).

And like Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media reported on Saturday, Sept. 19, 2009 that Michelle Obama now sees herself as the savior of Obamacare—just as Hillary was the architect of Hillarycare. Like Clinton, who is now serves the progressive movement as Obama's powerless Secretary of State, Michelle Obama took the healthcare lead when she addressed a woman's group in the White House on Friday. She began by telling her media event audience that her concern over the country's healthcare system wakes her up at night, adding that healthcare reform is "...very much a woman's issue," adding that "...the current system is preventing women from gaining true equality." Give me a break! First, not passing Obamacare was racist. Now, it's about equal rights for the fair sex. In reality, is about socialist control over the American people, and cutting healthcare costs by rationing healthcare to those on Social Security and making it a crime for any medical care provider to treat that person after medical procedures and/or lifesaving surgery is denied by Obama's Federal Health Care Board. To the progressive left that needs to find a way to quickly and drastically stem the financial drain on Social Security, euthanizing the elderly through the rationing of healthcare is like killing two birds with one stone.

Myra Gutlin, who has authored numerous books on the First Ladies, sees Michelle Obama's healthcare reform advocacy as a major step into politics, calling it her "political coming-out." Wonder if she might be considering a "Hillary" by challenging Chicagoland politician Roland Burris for his US Senate seat next year? The odds of the caretaker Senator Burris being knocked off in the primary are pretty much 50-50 right now. With her husband's popularity waning, Michelle Obama may find her venturing into her husband's britches may provoke the voters with the same diatribes that made Hillary Clinton the most despised woman in America. Watch for the "Who appointed her?" that will kick off the anti-Michelle backlash.

I think it's about time First Ladies resumed their historic role in the White House. If they get bored, they can work for various charities like the American Red Cross, the March of Dimes or the Cancer Society. First Ladies are not elected officials. Harvard lawyer or not, Michelle Obama needs to keep her nose out of the affairs of State. If she wants to mess with the legislative process, let her run for office and take her chances with the voters.

Institute of Marine Science: 20 years of global cooling—Sept. 11, 2009 >>>The New Scientist magazine reported on a United Kingdom tribunal that ruled, last week, that global warming simply does not exist, and that the world is in a 20 year cooling phase. The claims of the socialist environmentalists who fabricated a climate crisis to generate billion dollars of personal income selling recently legalized environmental extortion cap & trade credits is a case, according to New Scientist environmental correspondent Fred Pearce, of simply "bad timing." Pearce made that observation because 100% of the claims of 100% of the global warming eco-alarmists defy every honest scientific computer models and contemporary climate theory since global warming is a cyclic phenomenon caused about 98% by solar activity. The computer models of the agendized eco-alarmists are designed for profit, not to protect the people of the world from man-made climate change.

On Sept., 4 New Scientist magazine reported that the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, which has been an advocate of Al Gore's global warming theories, called for a conference in Geneva, Switzerland to draft a global plan to provide "climate services" to the world. Among scores of scientists attending the conference who don't believe the world is experiencing cyclic global warming was Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. Since Latif, like every honest climate scientist in the world, recognizes that even though the Earth's average temperature will likely rise about one half to one degree by 2100, right now, for the short term, the world is cooling.

At the conference, Latif predicted that in the next few years, a natural cooling trend will virtually erase any notion of human-caused global warming. The cooling, Latif predicted would come from the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] which, he said, is the world's "climate superpower." The NAO is so sensitive, Pearce noted, that it influences all global weather systems.. In fact, computer models constructed by both the Kiel University and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee show the synchronization of two weather systems: El Niño and NAO triggers climate change. according to UW climatologist Anastasios Tsonis this is the "pacemaker of climate change."

Tsonis and UW Professor Kyle Swanson wrote a paper entitled "Has the Climate Recently Shifted," that predicted generational cooling. Surprisingly, the paper won an unusual endorsement from the website, RealClimate, which was founded by Al Gore's public relations company and staffed by hardcore advocates of man-made climate change. In point of fact, Gore's people did not use the Tsonis-Swanson article in a positive light, noting that "...if one interprets (the New Scientist article) as that the situation is no longer as dire as previously thought, then one is in for a big disappointment. The sentiment is rather that climate change is unavoidable..." But then, it isn't like Gore's environmentalists are real scientists. They are paid flunkies who traded their integrity for money and position.

In their paper, Tsonis and Swanson correlated date not only from NAO and El Niño, but the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Pacific Index. In doing so, they discovered that the type of weather synchronization occurring now occurred four other times in the 20th century: 1910 to 1920, 1938 to 1945, 1946 to 1960 and 1976 to 1981. The most recent cooling—which Al Gore, in An Inconvenient Truth, claimed was actually a period in which the climate was warming at an alarming rate when it was actually cooling—started in 2001. The synchronization, according the scientists involved in the study, was an indicator of a phase shift. All of the evidence collected by this group shows there has been no statistically significant warming on Earth since 1995 (with the single exception of the summer of 1998 when El Niño caused temperatures in North America to raise briefly by 0.2°C. The cooling, the paper said, "...is suggestive of an internal shift of climate dynamics that remains poorly understood." My guess is that the current cooling cycle, dismissed by RealClimate, remains poorly understood only because about ten tons of fabricated computer models by agendized ecoalarmists have muddied the water and confused the clarity of the debate.

WAS TORNADO AN ADMONITION FROM GOD?—Aug. 24, 2009 >>>In its online edition, Christianity Today poised the question, pondering whether or not there was any connection between the vote by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA} to adopt a "sexuality statement" on homosexuality and the tornado which struck the Minneapolis Convention Center on Aug. 19 where they were meeting. John Piper, whose Baptist Church is just down the road from the convention center thought the storm itself was the message, telling Christianity Today reporter Ted Olsen that "...[t]he tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and to all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction."

A Christian renewal group within the ELCA reported that both sides of the discussion claimed the weather was a commentary from God supporting their point of view. WordAlone issued a statement in which they said "...a supporter of the social statement..." (those attempting to sanctify homosexuality in the Lutheran Church as normal behavior "...typified the storm as a mighty wind of the Holy Spirit, and as a positive message. Some WordAlone members heard a different message—a warning of God's anger at the ELCA in the wind." The tornado did significant roof damage to the Convention Center with 2,200 registered members debating the question of whether or not the Lutherans inside should approve a statement mitigating homosexuality. Outside the Central Lutheran Church, next door to the Convention Center, strong winds tore off part of the church's 90-year old metal steeple, then ripped apart large outdoor tents, and scattered chairs and folding tables across the parking lot. The tents were used earlier that day to serve breakfast to the guests attending the convention. Church member Jack Freitag said he saw a "..wall cloud from the south coming across the parking lot (with a) very loud roar." He saw signs and debris being blown around in the wind. "I was worried about the people then..."

About 120 people had taken refuge in the church's basement. The funnel cloud, which touched down twice, made significant physical impact on the terrain without doing any serious damage. A witness at the church said: "We saw the tornado. It was turning real fast. It got real black out here and had the trees coming to us on the left. The windows were shaking real bad, and all this stuff across the street in the church, they had a little dinner there, it tore it all up, and it was just lifting off the ground. And, it just disappeared. It just disappeared." Myself, if I had been one of the delegates voting, I would have voted against softening the position on homosexuality.

Nevertheless, with 2,200 registered attendees of which half were voters, by a vote of 676 to 338—the exact number needed to win—the delegates voted for a more open position on homosexuality (without officially sanctifying homosexuality as normal relationship). Their position became one of neither condemning nor condoning. The statement suggests the delegates could not reach a consensus although, in reality, they did. They agreed that in "...this discernment about ethics and church practices, faithful people can and will come to different conclusions about the meaning of Scripture and about constitutes responsible action. We further believe that this church, on the basis of 'sound conscience' will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world."

The fly in the ointment was found in the footnotes. The church statement clearly reveals what the church membership should view as a Laodicean red flag and find a Bible-believing church in which to fellowship with God. In the footnotes, this statement appears: "When the question is about morality or church practice, the Pauline and Lutheran witness is less adamant and believes we may be called to respect the bound conscience of the neighbor. That is, if salvation is not at stake in a particular question..." Since homosexuality is a violation of God's commandments (even in the Muslim faith), it cannot be casually overlooked and made acceptable to God when it is not. The footnote continues that "...if a brother or sister...saw eating meat (offered to pagan idols as something inherently wrong), the Christian was obligated to "walk in love" by eating just vegetables for the neighbor's sake." In point of fact, what is corrupting Christianity is the practice of compromising the Word of God in an attempt to find common ground where Christianity can be merged with other religions of the world. Just as the cold water springs and hot springs that run under the ancient city of Laodicea merge, becoming neither hot nor cold, so are the hearts of today's social Christians who find social compromise works better than standing on unpopular Christian principles.

I believe the Minneapolis tornado, in this context, did allegorically represent God's anger and His disappointment in the elders of that body. And the torrential rains were His tears over the wrong decision made by His "freewill creation" as He watched with a freshly crucified heart as members of the Body of Faith divorced themselves from His Word and became part of the rapidly growing Church of Laodicea that sees no evil in evil. The ELCA mollified His commandments and bent them to the whims of man, who is now promoting the lukewarm societal church that offends no one—except God.

IT MAY BE ILLEGAL TO WORSHIP GOD AT HOME—Aug 14, 2009 >>>WXII-Channel 12 in Winston-Salem, NC reported on Aug. 13 that residents in Elm Towers, a high rise public housing apartment building on South Elm Street in Highpoint, NC were ordered by the Highpoint Housing Authority to cease and desist from holding "inherently religious" Christian worship services in a common area on the first floor of the high-rise apartment building. Religious services have been held in a private, common-use room in the building for many years to benefit seniors who are too old or feeble to attend regular church services even with assisted transportation. Elm Towers residents have been meeting in the common room each Sunday morning and many Wednesday evenings for Christian worship services that are led by a neighborhood pastor.

A complaint from one Elm Towers resident, filed last month with the Highpoint Housing Authority, ended the services. The Housing Authority sent out letters to all of the residents of Elm Tower informing them that US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development [HUD] rules forbids "...inherently religious activities for organizations that receive HUD funds." While the apartment complex technically receives funds from HUD to offset a portion of the rents paid by the tenants, in a strictly legal sense, the person renting the apartment must apply for the HUD subsidy. Therefore, even though the funds technically end up with the landlord, the money is actually being paid by HUD to the tenant who had to apply and qualify for the Section 8 rent subsidy. Thus, HUD is not technically paying the money to any organization. It is paying the money to an individual who, in turn , pays the money to the apartment complex. Thus, when the money reaches the apartment managers, it is technically money belonging to tenant. HUD is simply the "bank" that honors the check.

While the HUD disbursement is physically paid to the apartment complex's management company on the tenant's behalf when the landlord deposits the tenant's voucher in his account at the bank, the truth is the money is actually being paid to the tenant who had to apply to get it. The tenant actually receives this "money" in the form of vouchers that can only be used to pay the rent. The voucher, together with whatever cash is required to pay the rent, is given to the landlord. The landlord redeems the voucher (i.e., a check from the tenant).

Further evidence of the validity of that statement comes from the fact that the HUD funds (i.e., the vouchers) move with the tenant. When the tenant leaves one Section 8 rent subsidized apartment building and moves to another one, the tenant does not lose the HUD subsidy. Once the subsidy is granted, it moves with the tenant. HUD pays the tenant, not the organization that owns the apartment complex. The tenant pays the apartment's management company who then becomes the recipient of the funds—from the tenant.

There is a fine legal point of whether or not any Housing Authority can deny anyone their 1st amendment right to worship God under a separation of church and State argument . According to Highpoint Housing Authority spokesperson Rachel Matthews, HUD forbids religious activities in common areas and lobbies of buildings that receive HUD funds. But tenants are free to worship in their apartments (providing they don't disturb their neighbors).

First, HUD needs to understand that the money they are disbursing isn't their money—it is our money! And Christian America has no restrictions that forbid US citizens from worshipping God. Our "restrictions" are centered on getting rid of those in government—elected and non-elected—who are trying to erase the Bill of Rights through regulations created by unelected bureaucrats who some how got the notion in their noggins that they rule the rest of us.

One of the Elm Tower residents who periodically, but not regularly, attended the services, Howard Embler, was disappointed by the Housing Authority notice. "To me," he told Channel 12, "it's stepping on our constitutional rights. You're supposed to be able to worship like you want. We've got a lot of elderly people here who can't get out on their own to church." Embler, like 99% of Americans can understand what happened to freedom of religion in America.

Americans don't realize that, over the last decade, the federal judiciary—including all but the four conservatives on the US Supreme Court—have very surreptitiously coupled Articles 13 and 14 of the UN's International Covenant on Human Rights with the 1st Amendment, giving the courts a slightly different legal take on precisely what our rights are under the 1st Amendment.

When you think of freedom of religion, you think of it in terms of "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Under the era of the New Deal the government could not interfere with your right to worship God as you saw fit, nor could cities, counties, States or the federal government construct legal barriers which interfered with those rights. Once the courts coupled the first half of the 1st Amendment with Article 13 of the Covenant on Human Rights, our right to practice our religion was suddenly subjected to limitations based on someone else not liking how we worship. Article 13 says the "...freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by law." In our society today, religious freedom exists for Islam, atheism (a form of secular religiosity), Wicca and New Age. Excluded from protection under the 1st Amendment are two religions: Judaism and Christianity. Interestingly, when you witness the abridgment of the right of free speech for conservatives and expanded free speech for those attempting to destroy America, it is because the second half of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." has been coupled with Article 14 of the Covenant on Human Rights: "The right to seek, receive or impart information and ideas carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may, therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions, but these shall be only as such as are provided by law." Got the picture?

When Channel 12 reported on the story, the Highpoint Housing Authority, which cannot constitutionally ban the worship services without a court order, they failed to mention what religious affiliations, or lack thereof, held by the aggrieved party. The Highpoint Housing Authority self-servingly abrogated the right of senior citizens with limited mobility to attend a "catered" church service to the apartment building because one person—a Muslim? an atheist?—didn't like it. Rachel Matthews said: "We're not telling residents they cannot have religious activities in their homes, but they cannot hold things in common areas. We understand they would like to do this, but we have to go by regulations." Even when "regulations" violate the Constitution. I wonder if Matthews and the Housing Authority would have been so quick to abrogate religious freedom in Highpoint if the offender was just one sole Muslim tenant, who wanted to bring his prayer rug into the lobby four times a day (because he had a better view of Mecca), and pray in the public area? Believe me when I say this: there would be nary a word of protest from the Housing Authority, HUD, or the White House.

ILLEGALS SENDING LESS MONEY BACK TO MEXICO—July 10, 2009 >>>USA Today reported that with the US recession in full throttle, migrant workers (the politically-correct adjective which collectively refers to a handful of legal migrant workers and a bucket full of illegal aliens) are sending less money home to Mexico. They say (and Lord knows who "they" are) that, in every rain cloud there's a silver lining. This must be it. God bless the Bush-43's recession. (No blessings for what will likely be Obama's Depression since it's going to make the Weimar Republic's monetary collapse and the type of Depression that put Adolph Hitler in power, look like an economic burp.)

When the man the African media refers to as "...a natural born Kenyan citizen," Barack Hussein Obama, was campaigning for the office of President, and promising the NAACP he was going to redistribute the wealth of the American middle class, the "migrant workers" (USA Today's word, not mine) were sending half, or more, the money they earned from legal or illegal employment back home. "Back home" in the USA Today article was Pacula, Mexico. It's a remote mountain town north of Mexico City. Like many towns in central Mexico with a substantial number of "migrant workers," Pacula was experiencing the same type of housing boom as your town or mine. Only, these new homeowners weren't getting 30- to 50-year toxic adjustable rate subprime mortgages. The cash that the "migrant workers" collectively were hauling home from their tax-free jobs in the United States was about $25 billion a year ago. Those revenues are now down about 56% and are drying up even faster as jobs for the estimated 20 million illegals in the Unied States become more scarce.

Americans, who wouldn't work for the 60%-wage jobs a year or two ago when jobs were more plentiful, found that feeding their families in hard times makes men do things today that they wouldn't do yesterday). US workers are now taking jobs with no fringe benefits or health benefits just to get enough money to put food on the table and keep the lights on in homes threatened by foreclosure.

The Mexico housing boom has likewise stopped. Since most of the homes in these rural towns were largely being built on pay-as-you-go budgets, a paycheck at a time—and not from bank loans—American-style dream homes, with families living in them, remain half built. Infrastructure building projects within the Mexican communities—paid for with Mexican-asessed taxes on tax-free US dollars—remain unfinished with rusting steel rebars jutting from unfinished concrete walls. Most of the residents of these rural towns, like Pacula, which is just north of Mexico City, are women and children. Husband and sons, many of whom have returned empty-handed from the United States, are now looking for work in Mexico City—in US companies that have relocated to Mexico.

The low middle class lifestyle of the residents has deteriorated as the people in many of these communities can no longer afford to buy the fresh farm produce, eggs, poultry and fresh meat from nearby farmers—who are also feeling the bite of Bush-43's recession, and will soon be overwhelmed by the tsunamic affect of Obama's Depression that will reach its gnarly fist deep into the heart of Mexico and make the former "migrant workers" rue the day they championed "change" in America.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON NEW HAVEN FIREFIGHTER CASE—June 29, 2009 >>>The US Supreme Court just overturned still another Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor opinion. The high court ruled, in a 5-to-4 decision, that the opinion of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the 2004 Ricci v Destefano case was wrong. In 2004, 77 New Haven, Connecticut firefighters took a civil service exam hoping to secure one of eight lieutenancies. Forty-three of those taking the lieutenant's test were white, 19 were black and 15 were Hispanic. Of the 35 who actually passed the test, 25 were white, 6 were black and 3 were Hispanic. The top six scorers were white. The 7th and 8th scorers, who won the other two jobs, were Hispanic. The black candidates scored 14th, 16th, 19th, 20th, 22nd and 24th. Because no black candidates scored high enough to win promotion, the City of New Haven decided not to promote anyone. Firefighter Frank Ricci, a dyslexic 11-year veteran of the department, invested his own money to hire someone to read the textbooks onto CDs so he could learn the material, won one of the jobs. He sued.

It has taken 5 years for Ricci and the other seven who, through competitive testing, rightfully won the jobs. The high court said the city was wrong to scrap the promotions because no African-Americans and only two Hispanics won promotion. The City of New Haven argued that it scrapped the exams to avoid being sued by disgruntled minorities who felt entitled to a promotion. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to be detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the high court. Joining him in this decision were Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Writing the minority opinion, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "...had no vested right to promotion," adding that the minorities had not received promotions in preference to them. No harm, no foul. Wrong. The eight candidates who were denied promotion had a vested right to promotion, since they won the promotions through a civil service exam. Had eight black and/or Hispanic firefighters scored the highest and won the promotions, and six white and two Hispanic firefighters challenged their right to the jobs, Ginsburg (likely writing the majority opinion), would have affirmed the vested right of the eight minority candidates—based solely on the fact that they scored higher on the exam.

Affirmative action is still alive and well in the minds of the social progressives. If 8 minority candidates won the civil service exams in a predominantly white northwestern city that decided to simply defer from promoting anyone, that case would have been tried in the media long before it got into a courtroom. The city managers would have been forced to resign, and the eight successful civil service exam scorers would have been promoted—as well they should. The civil service examination system was created by President Chester A. Arthur to break up the Tammany Hall spoils system and award government job promotions based solely on qualifications and no other criteria. The City of New Haven violated those principles and chose to base job promotions on an affirmative action spoils system.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor now has only one Circuit Court decision that she penned which has not been overturned by the US Supreme Court. Eighty percent of the decisions she crafted have been overturned. If the last one, a weapons case, is overturned—which most legal minds believe it will—then 100% of the decisions she crafted will have been overturned. And, this is the jurist Obama wants on the Supreme Court. Who is more suspect? Her—or him?

BLACK PANTHER VOTE INTIMIDATION—June 8, 2009 >>>A Obama Justice Dept official spoke to the Washington Times on condition of anonymity over fear of retribution. Career lawyers, they said, who intended to pursue a default judgment against three Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place in Philadelphia on Nov. 4, 2008, found their prosecutions dismissed by political appointees in the Eric Holder, Jr. Justice Department.

Career Justice Dept. lawyers began the prosecution of the three on Jan. 7, 2009. They were identified as New Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, a resident of Washington, DC; Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, an elected official in Philadelphia's 13th Ward, and a credentialed Democratic election observer (even though what he was doing on Nov. 4 was intimidating white voters who tried to enter the polling place to vote).

According to Justice Department papers, the three blocked access to a Philadelphia voting place. All of them were dressed in military-style uniforms with black berets, black jackets. One was armed, the charges read, with a "dangerous weapon." The report noted that the men accosted white voters using racial slurs and insults intended to scare would-be voters, saying the three "...engaged in coercion, threats and intimidation...racial threats and insults...menacing and intimidating gestures...and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." Police arrived after being called by a poll watcher who told them three black men with a club were blocking the entrance and not letting white voters enter the polling place. In at least one instance, the threesome told one white poll worker that they were tired of "white supremacy," adding that it was going to end that day.

The Obama Justice Department chose not believe the three intimidated anyone. On May 14, Justice Dept. public relations spokesman Alejandro Miyar issued a statement that the charges against two of the three defendants had been dismissed based, Miyar said, "...on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The Department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote." Charges against Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were dismissed. The Justice Dept. asked US District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell for a default judgment against Samir Shabazz, preventing him from brandishing a weapon within 100 feet of a voting place on any election day in the city of Philadelphia until Nov. 15, 2012.

The Shabazzes and Jackson were charged with violating the Voting Rights Act of 1964 by directing threats, intimidation and coercion at potential voters by deploying uniformed, armed members of the New Black Panther Party at the entrances to polling locations in Philadelphia, St. Louis and other toss-up cities throughout the country. The Black Panthers have 26 chapters across the nation. All of them blocked access to whites in toss-up states where a handful of votes made the difference between winning or losing that State's electoral votes. These were flagrant voting rights violations on a massive, national scale. And, the Voting Rights Act is succinctly clear that any attempt by anyone to intimidate, threaten or coerce voters or those aiding voters, is guilty of violating that law. The penalty for intimidating voters under the proposed Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 (S.453 and HR 1281)—had it been successfully enacted—would have been one to five years in a federal prison per offense.

That law was proposed by Sen. Barack Obama who sponsored the legislation to protect voters—minority voters—from being intimidated. When he originally proposed the legislation he said: "One of our most sacred rights as Americans is the right to make our voice heard at the polls. But too often, we hear reports of mysterious phone calls and mailers arriving just days before an election that seek to mislead and threaten voters to keep them from the polls. And those who engage in these deceptive and underhanded campaign tactics usually target voters living in minority or low-income households. This legislation would ensure that, for the first time, these incidents are fully investigated and that those found guilty are punished."

Had that law passed in 2007, anyone warning the voters that Barack Obama had never been vetted by the Democratically-controlled US Senate to verify that he met all of the Article II constitutional requirements to seek the office of President of the United States, could be charged with violating the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007. Found guilty, they might find themselves in a federal prison for five years for influencing people not to vote for Obama.

NRA-ILA—May 10, 2009>>>An email containing a bulletin from the Institute for Legislation for the National Rifle Association pretty much pinpoints the state of flux that exists between the social progressives and the conservatives over gun control. The social progressives would like us all to believe that if guns were outlawed, thieves and murderers would no longer be able to get them. In reality, the plans of the social progressives make it imperative to erase the Bill of Rights, and then suspend or abolish the Constitution. The first step in abrogating national sovereignty and erasing the borders that separate us from Mexico and Canada is the repeal, or erasing, of the 2nd Amendment.

On Tuesday, May 12 at 9:00 a.m., according the the NRA-ILA bulletin, the Louisiana House Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice (will consider two polar opposite pieces of legislation—House Bill 387 and House Bill 27. One bill is a clone of the Clinton semi-automatic rifle ban that expired in 2004. It also contains a Bobby Rush [D-IL] provision that would require rifle owners to register all weapons, files as well as handguns, with police—and renew a license to own annually. The other, House Bill 27, is a measure that will allow people with Concealed Handgun permits to carry their concealed weapon, for self-defense, on college campuses. In recent campus shootings, some of those shot had concealed weapon permits but were barred by federal law from carrying their handguns onto campus. Had they been allowed, there is no doubt the death toll would have been much lower; and perhaps, nonexistent. I wonder, which bill was sponsored by the Democrat, and which was proffered by the Republican?

You guessed it. HB 387 was sponsored by New Orleans born and raised Cedric L. Richmond, a Democrat from the 101st District. Sponsoring HB 27 was Ernest D. Wooten, a Republican from the 105th District. If you are a resident of Louisiana, please contact the members of the Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice on Monday, May 11 and voice your opposition to House Bill 387 and your support of House Bill 27.. The committee members are: Ernest D. Wooten [R], Chairman; Damon J. Baldone [D], Vice Chair; Representatives Roy Burrell [D]. Gregory Ernst [R], Elbert Guillory [D], Mickey Guillory [D], Lowell Hazel [R], Frank A. Howard [R], Joseph Lopinto [R], Barbara Norton [D]. Jonathan Perry [R], John Schroder, Sr. [R], Gary Smith, Jr. [D]. Ricky Templet [R]. and Mack "Bodi" White [R]. All of the House members can be reached through phone number (225) 342-6945.

London Daily Mail—Apr. 26, 2009 >>>The frightening, thought-provoking headline in the online Daily Mail was a shot between the eyes for heterosexuals everywhere. The headline? "What makes you think it's natural to be heterosexual? Christian teacher suspended over gay rights promotion row." The bylined article by Jonathan Petre was posted on the Mail Online and began: "A senior teacher has been suspended from his £50,000-a-year job after he complained that a training day for the staff was used to promote gay rights. Kwabena Peat, 54, was one of several Christian staff who walked out of the compulsory session at a North London school after an invted speaker questioned why people thought heterosexuality was natural."

The politically-correct presentation was given by a member of School's Out, a 35-year old British gay rights group that specializes in advocacy for homosexual and lesbian school teachers and primary and secondary school students who are exploring homosexuality. School's Out was the brainchild of Labour Party member of Parliament Michael Cashman—England's Barney Frank—who founded the gay rights advocacy group Stonewall .

Cashman works closing with School's Out co-founder Sue Sanders, and has used the British Parliament to mainstream the gay rights agenda not only in England's public school system but its its private schools as well. In this instance, neither Cashman nor Stonewall arranged for the diversity training session that caused the current flap in England. It was organized by Chrysalis, a group that specializes in "diversity issues." Park View Academy paid Chrysalis £850 for the one day sensitivity training session.

Due to Cashman's efforts in Parliament, YouGov sampled 2,043 Stonewall-supplied names of teachers and non-teaching school staffers from primary and secondary schools in England to poll them about their knowledge of homophobic bullying, or if they had personally experienced such treatment themselves. Eighty pecent of those responding to the YouGov poll were school teachers. Ninety percent of those respondents worked in the public school system. Eight percent worked in private schools with 23% of them working in Christian schools.

Ninety percent of those who responded said homsexual students in their schools are regularly bullied, harassed or called slang names for homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals. One in four said the bullying happened "very often." Secondary school teachers said homophobic bullying is the second most frequent cause of bullying. The most common form of bullying comes from making fun of overweight peers.

The presentation that caused the suspension of Kwabena Peat, a history teacher, in the North London Park View Academy in Tottenham was one in which the gay rights School's Out advocacy group was hired to educate the teachers at Park View on how to deal with "homophobic bullies." . Peat, an African-Brit, spent most of his career teaching in London's inner-city schools. He joined the faculty at Park View Academy three years ago and is now one of their a headmasters.

When the largely Christian teaching staff at Park View learned that the in-service education and training session would deal of homophobism, the teachers believed the session would teach them how to deal with homophobic bullying and other child protective issues related to alternate sexual orientation. That proved not to be the case. Sixty-two year old Sue Sanders, who later claimed all she was trying to do was raise awareness that homosexuality is now a fact of life, began promoting the homosexual lifestyle to the teaching staff at Park View Academy. When teachers objected to the advocacy on behalf of homosexuality and lesbiansim, Sanders told them that anyone who had any objections needed to sort out their own prejudices. When further objections arose as Sanders continued, she asked the teachers: "What makes you think that to be heterosexual is natural?"

At that point Peat, who later noted that neither he nor the other staff members who disagreed with Sanders on religious grounds were given a chance to respond to her sales pitch for the homosexual/lesbian lifestyle, left the mandatory "sensitivity training session."

The matter did not end there. Peat, a married father of three, then wrote what he thought was private letters to the three Park View staffers who organized the session, complaining about Sander's aggressive advocacy on behalf of what he described as a non-Biblical liefstyle, quoting the Bible as he admonished the staffers that the practice of homsexuality risks the wrath of God. The staffers, who claimed they were intimidated and harassed by Peat's admonition of their conduct, filed a complaint against Peat with Park View Academy's principal, demanding an investigation of Peat. The investigation resulted in Peat's suspension. Peat told the media—which decided to report on the incident almost four months after it happened—that he was "...very disappointed, although not shocked. I am the one who has been harassed and intimidated for expressing my religious views."

The story did not become a media event until the Christian Legal Centre stepped in to represent Peat. The Centre was formed in Dec., 2007 by a Christian lawyer, Andrea Williams. The Christian Rights legal advocacy firm has now grown to a staff of 12 which includes seven lawyers. Their objective is "...to promote and protect Biblical freedom of Christian believers in the United Kingdom, and to promote religious freedom as a fundamental right by means of legal action and public promotion." And, of course, getting the incident reported in the British media after it was ignored for almost four months was the public promotion.

Thanks to MEP Michael Cashman and and pro-homosexual advocacy groups like Stonewall, primary and secondary school students and teachers in the United Kingdom are exposed to blatant, pro-homosexual advocacy much like the Stonewall video shown here. WARNING: this is an explicit video containing crude slang language.

What is happening in England is happening all over the world as globalists push the homosexual and lesbian lifestyle solely as a means of population curtailment. Homosexuals and lesbians cannot procreate. In the United States, same sex marriage provisions are gaining ground not because the homosexual rights groups have convinced those with traditional views of marriage and traditional roles of men and women have been convinced that homosexuality and lesbianism are acceptable lifestyles, or that mankind has a God-given right to overrule The Creator by consensus, but rather, because liberal judges are overruling the consensus of the people but judicially legislating a population control agenda mandated by the overlords of the New World Order.

USA Today—Apr. 24, 2009 >>> According to USA Today, Resident Barack Hussein Obama had a "get tough" meeting at the White House on Thursday with 14 of the nation's largest credit card executives. Before the April 23 meeting Obama used the Oval Office bully pulpit to chastise credit card companies. The White House press corps told the media that Obama planned to impose new rules on credit card companies to protect consumers against abusive interest hikes. In an all too common photo op, Obama told the TV cameras that people receiving low interest credit card offering find "...themselves starting off with a low rate and the next thing they know, their interest rates have doubled, fees that they didn't know about that are suddenly tacked onto their bills...There has to be strong and reliable protections for consumers protections," Obama concluded. "Protections that ban unfair rate increases and forbid abusive fees and penalties. The days of anytime, any reason rate hikes and late fee traps have to end."

The White House Press Corps told the media that Congress was ready to impose new regulations on credit card companies if those companies did not agree to reverse detrimental "issuer policies" that have saddled consumers with a new, unexpected, round of unaffordable debt that has further crippled the ability of consumers to use credit. It is important for consumers who actually expect something other than political threats and meaningless rhetoric to come out of Thursday's meeting to remember that the credit card giants are, first and foremost, campaign contributors not only of Obama, but of those who sit on the congressional committees and possess the power to regulate them. It's also important to note that those credit card executives paid dearly (through campaign contributions) to have written into the lending laws the provisions that allow them to arbitrarily raise your credit card interest rates when your neighbor fails to pay his bill. Why do you think the White House has politely asked those corporate heads to reverse these issuer policies instead of repealing their right to do so? And, that's why when Sen. Chris Dodd [D-CT] was asked by a CBS-TV reporter this morning when the consumers could expect legislation to provide the relief from credit card interest abuses that Obama promised, he waffled. Dodd surmised that with 535 members in Congress, its hard to predict when such legislation would be forthcoming. Pushed, he said he was sure something would be done.

That's why the much-hyped "federal slapdown" of the credit card was so boring that Economic Advisor Lawrence Summers found time during the Obama "berating of the interest-gougers" to take a nap. In the April 23 issue of USA Today, Gannett reporter Kathy Chu said: "Today, [Resident] Obama and economic adviser Lawrence Summers are meeting at the White House with executives from more than a dozen credit card companies..." The tone of Chu's article suggested the White House was going to get tough. And, by the end of the meeting, credit card interest relief would be on its way to the US consumers who have already been brutally raped by Obama's three trillion, five hundred billion dollar stimulus for the rich that they are expected to pay. Right? Wrong.

Entertainment Weekly —Apr. 7, 2009 >>> According to Entertainment Weekly, and in quick succession, the National Public Radio and the Associated Press, Dr. Lawrence Kutner is not dead. The reports of his death were premature and greatly exaggerated. Instead, he has chosen to live in the perpetual purgatory of Washington, DC as the Associate Director for White House Liaison. So, he surrendered his stethoscope and tongue depressors and exited, stage left.

If you don't know who Dr. Kutner is, then you aren't a House fan. House, or rather Dr. Gregory House, is the overbearing, never clean-shaven, Vicodin-popping, diagnostics genius who nearly kills every patient each Monday evening on Fox TV before miraculously saving them. Kutner was New Jersey-born actor Kal Penn.

The episode of House that aired on Monday, Apr. 6 took most viewers by surprise when Kutner became a suicide victim. Thousands of House fans, shocked by the inexplicable suicide of Kutner on the show, beelined for their computers believing the suicide was written into the script because Penn had died.

In reality, as Penn explained to Entertainment Weekly, he was offered a chance to join the Obama Administration as Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison and decided it was time for a change of direction in his life. Penn said he was "...incredibly honored a couple of months ago..." to get an offer from Obama, adding that he got to know him "...and some of the staff during the campaign, and had expressed interest in working there." Penn described his new job as the "front door" of the White House—even though he will be working in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the West Wing where most of the nonessential White House staffers works. In reality, its the front door to nowhere. Penn's job, he said, will be something of an outreach director with the American public. The "public" will be the Asian-American and Pacific Island communities (huh?) and, of course, the all-important arts and entertainment groups. But here's the rub. How many Pacific Island communities are part of the United States of America? Hawaii. And this requires a special envoy in the White House?

Obama likes the idea of having someone that can talk to the Big and Small screen stars and get them more active in Obama's next campaign. Obama, who just finished his first presidential campaign started his reelection campaign on Jan. 21, 2009. Penn must have been really "star-struck" to take the pay cut that comes with his new job. Penn must be pretty gullible. Community-activists are a dime a dozen. Kutner had more worth to society than either Penn or Obama—and he was a make-believe person. But then, so is Obama.

The Washington Times—Mar. 24, 2009 >>> According to TWT reporters Jon Ward and Patrice Hill, Barack Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "...has offered the most significant initiative to date to revive bank lending and the economy [by] calling on private investors to join with the Treasury in buying up to $1 trillion in toxic mortgage debt at ailing banks." The stock market, according to the article, rebounded with the news. As I recall, the market did that the first time around in Sept., 2008 when Congress passed the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The legislation designated a portion of those proceeds to buy the foreclosed subprime mortgages and free up credit for working class consumers (those who buy the products and services on Main Street America). Had this happened on President George W. Bush's watch when Henry Paulson was supposed to funnel the money to the Resolution Trust Co. to buy up the toxic mortgages, it would have restored the asset to debt ratio in the nation's consumer banks, and the crisis would have ended before anyone knew there was a crisis. But Paulson didn't follow through.

That required Congressman Barney Frank [D-MA] to step in and sponsor the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Once again, someone suggested that buying up the toxic mortgages might stimulate the economy and maybe even save Christmas from the Grinch. And, once again the market responded like someone had goosed a naked fat lady with an icicle on the 4th of July.

But now, with over $1,789,500,000,000.00 of taxpayer dollars committed to doing something—which turned out to be bailing out banks in Europe and Asia at the expense of working class US taxpayers—the toxic mortgages remained on the ledger sheets of America's commercial banks. Which meant, America's commercial banks still had no money to loan because their asset to debt ratios were out of whack, and the paperwork suggested the banks were not solvent—when they were.

What happened? One more of those famous Federal Reserve shell games. Nobody's talking about it that much except for the bankers in the privacy of their limos on their way home from their lavish offices to their lavish homes. In the privacy of darkly-tinted windows they can curse the Fed bankers and the weak-knee politicians who are afraid of the money barons who need to further exacerbate this crisis in order to collapse the dollar and create a global monetary unit.

Everyone knows the blame lies with the Fed's "mark-to-market" rule. Suspend that rule, and the crisis is over. The damage may have been done, but it won't get any worse. In addition, the consumer crisis will be over as well. The availability of credit will be restored, retail sales on Mainstreet America will soar and job growth will begin to mushroom, ending the recession before Resident Obama can make a decade-long national crisis out of it. What is "mark-to-market?" Mark-to-market is a bookkeeping tool that businesses use to reduce the net worth of assets to their current market values solely for tax purposes. Mark-to-market reduces the value of toxic assets to what they would get for it those asssets if they sold it today. Mark-to-market makes sense only if you are trying to stave off paying taxes on the full market value of asset that can bring only a fraction of its value if it was sold today.

The mark-to-market rule forced commercial and mortgage banks to reduce, on paper, the net worth of the toxic mortgages they held as collateral for the loans they had granted to finance the homes. Once those assets were reduced in value on paper, they were suddenly worth far less than the mortgage notes, destroying the bank's asset-to-debt ratios and, by Fed standards, rendering those banks insolvent. The Fed's forcing the banks holding those toxic assets to recalculate the value of the toxic collateral at the absolute worst time, reducing shareholder equity and creating a financial crisis of the Fed's making.

Like his predecessors in President George E. Bush's administration, Resident Obama rightly said moving the toxic assets off the books of the banks will free up credit and get the economy moving again. He said it would help jumpstart the economy. This is now the third time we've heard this song and dance. Let's stop playing "ring around the rosies," and jumpstart the economy before it literally falls down.

(By the way, because I refuse to call him "president," this website has decided to refer to White House occupant Barack Hussein Obama as "Resident Obama"until he consents to the demands of the American people and produces a hospital-issued, long-form brith certificate to prove his live birth happened in Honolulu, Hawaii. That document will verify that Resident Obama is a natural born US citizen and is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. It still won't answer the question of whether or not his step-father exchanged his US citizenship for an Indonesian citizenship [which appears to have happened], but let's take this one step at a time. The US Supreme Court has to weigh in and decide if Obama is [a] an illegal alien, [b] a statutory citizen, or [c] a natural born citizen. My money's on [a] or [b].)

USA Today—Mar. 20, 2009 >>> reported that on Mar. 10, during the murder spree in Samson, Alabama in which 11 people were killed, Geneva County Sheriff Greg Ward called the commandant at Fort Rucker in Dotham, Alabama and asked for US Army troops to help the Geneva Sheriff's Department because all of his officers were tied up processing a crime scene that was scattered over 20 miles. Former Samson resident Michael McLendon caused the crime spree killing nine people in Samson and a 10th in a neighboring town before killing himself.

Ward admitted that when the shooting spree happened he already had officers on duty for 12 hours and, he said, he was clueless how long it would take to process the crime scenes. So, he told his dispatcher to call Fort Rucker and request about 25 soldiers to come to Geneva County to assist the sheriff's department. While Samson Mayor Clay King (whom, one imagines, was part of the decision to break federal law) said he couldn't see why there was "...a fuss about neighbors helping neighbors." There were two things wrong with it. First is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 USC 1385). Posse Comitatus forbids the US military from functioning in any law enforcement capacity—even if they don't have loaded weapons, or even if they're just helping out a sheriff whose up to his armpits in alligators and can't clear his own swamp.

Second, the people of Geneva County need to rethink a sheriff's who saw nothing wrong with calling Brig. Gen. James O. Barclay III, the commandant of Fort Rucker, and asking Jimmy to loan him a couple dozen good ol' boys to help him out. There's just something wrong with a county sheriff in the United States who doesn't know that federal law precludes military people from functioning as law enforcement officials over civilians. Or that only a governor or the President of the United States can call up troops. While a hick town Alabama sheriff might have missed that lesson the day he went to school in Samson, Alabama, a general officer should have known better.

But, what bothers me most is that it's not like Barclay is a 90-day wonder wearing a brass bar. Brig. Gen. James O. Barclay III has a silver star on his collar. He understands the restrictions that Posse Comitatus places upon his ability to play Good Neighbor Sam. Barclay should have explained the procedures involved, and the purposes for which troops—even a couple dozen "neighbors"— can be called up. And, more than anything else, Barclay should have explained to Sheriff Ward that he simply isn't high enough up the political food chain call in the military. Ward should have called in the Alabama State Police. Maybe Gov. Bob Riley [R-AL] should ask the military to call an Article 32 hearing for Gen. Bradley.

The Washington Times—Mar. 16, 2009 >>> reported that Pennsylvania labor leaders, particularly William George, President of the AFL-CIO of Pennsylvania met with Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA] in order to convince him to switch his vote—and gain his proxy to keep the Republican Party from being able to filibuster the Employees Free Choice Act of 2009.

EFCA virtually eliminates free choice by denying union workers the right to secret ballot voting on whether or not they want to be represented by a union. EFCA actually allows unions to strongarm workers into signing union representation cards out of fear of retribution from union advocates in the workplace. EFCA also hamstrings employers from negotiating wage and benefits issues with union representatives, giving the federal government the authority to arbitrarily decide what's equitable for both the employer and the employees

In 2007, 51 senators—all Democrats—voted for cloture on EFCA. They were nine votes short of passage. One election later and the Senate is counting pennies. Today, Democrats and left-voting independents total 58. They are two branches short of a victory wreath unless Al Franken prevails in the Senate race recount in Minnesota. Adding to their woes, it appears that Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is more concerned about getting reelected in 2010 than she is voting for EFCA. She won't get reelected if she votes for the Free Choice Act. Workers in her State will send her packing. Therefore, she informed Speaker Nancy Pelosi she will be voting no on the Free Choice Act.

According to the Washington Times, Pennsylvania AFL President William George promised Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA] that Pennsylvania union members will become Republicans long enough to help him win a tough 2010 primary against Club For Growth President Pat Toomey. The Washington Times reported that George told them he had promised Specter "...all kinds of help from the union" if he votes to the Free Choice Act. Which he will.

That means all the union leaders need is one more vote. It will likely come from Olympia Snowe [R-ME] or Susan Collins [R-ME]. When that happens, American workers will no longer have the free choice to decide whether or not they want a union—and whether they want to kick in part of their income as union dues.

The Washington Times—Mar. 12, 2009 >>> reported in Greg Pierce's column, Inside Politics, that former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. was scheduled to appear at the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics Conference in South Pasadena, CA with Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a noted skeptic on the topic of global warming. It appears when Gore found out he would be pressured at the conference to debate Klaus, he rearranged his schedule in order to appear the day before Klaus arrived—and be gone when his eco-adversary arrived, in order to avoid being forced into an embarrassing debate on global warming..

Klaus told Greg Pierce that the reason he traveled from Europe to California was to get a chance to interact with Gore on the topic of global warming. "I don't understand this reluctance to engage with others," Klaus said. He further noted that when "...Willie Soos, an astrophysicist from Harvard asked Mr. Gore during the Q and A period what exactly he was trying to accomplish in practical terms with his proposals. Mr. Gore ignored the substance of the question and snidely said he '...was trying to save humanity.'"